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

[oops_ur_dead]

Red = Muslim majority countries from which (even fully legal) travel is banned, yellow = not banned Muslim majority that Trump happens to have business dealings in.

Fun fact: even if this ban was enacted 3 decades ago it would have stopped a grand total of one terrorist attack (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_O...versity_attack) during that time period. Every single other attack, including 9/11, the Orlando shooting, the San Bernardino shooting, and the Boston Bombing, was committed by an immigrant from a non-banned country, an American national whose parents immigrated from a non-banned country, or an American convert.

However, if we include the Muslim-majority countries that Trump (coincidentally, of course) has business dealings with in the ban, and assuming the ban would have actually stopped terrorists in those countries from coming to America, then it would have stopped a significant number of attacks (including 9/11) since most perpetrators of Islamist terrorist attacks in the US come from Saudi Arabia and Egypt.

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.

[thedougler]

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.

[oops_ur_dead]

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.

Yemen was never featured on the State Sponsors of Terrorism list. He also forgot to ban entry from Cuba, which has been on the list.

[Orpz]

wow granting exemptions countries that he has business dealings in

sounds a little corrupt tbqh family

[MattZed]

Turkey is in NATO. Egypt is an officially designated Major non-NATO ally. Banning travel from such a close ally is a major no-no. The US also enjoys a close alliance with the government of Saudi Arabia, and we've have good military relations with the U.A.E since our interests aligned in the Gulf War.

The better explanation is "Trump didn't ban countries with which the US has good relations." The fact that yellow countries are contributing to the War on Terror is another point, and the reason Trump has business dealings with these countries is because the US is on good terms with them.

EDIT: Look at other blank spots missing from the map: Jordan, Israel. This really is just a map of how nations in the Middle East feel about the US. (exception of Iraq, whose failure of a government is quite friendly, but the country has a major Daesh presence.)

[PowersThatBe]

Banning people because of their religion or natural origin violates our own civil rights laws. It also flies in the face of the first amendment.

[thedougler]

Banning people because of their religion or natural origin violates our own civil rights laws. It also flies in the face of the first amendment.

Nothing Trump has done so far is illegal or even unprecedented. The Lautenberg Amendment of 1989 was very similar in that it gave preference to religious minorities (mostly Jews and Ruthenian Catholics) in the Soviet Union and gave them refugee status even if the fear of persecution was small to non-existent. The left really has no legal leg to stand on here.

Even if his order was illegal I'd still support it tbh, but I can't see how it is. The way it's worded makes clear that national origin isn't the deciding factor behind the ban.

[Apocist]

Nothing Trump has done so far is illegal or even unprecedented.

Except for maybe breaking our constitutional right to freedom of speech: https://boingboing.net/2017/01/25/tru...s-a-ban-o.html

[yzb25]

There's no point banning those countries if they're not actually contributing to terrorism though. If this isn't actually doing much to stop terrorism, then it's just a political gesture.

"Nothing Trump has done so far is illegal or even unprecedented. The Lautenberg Amendment of 1989 was very similar in that it gave preference to religious minorities (mostly Jews and Ruthenian Catholics) in the Soviet Union and gave them refugee status even if the fear of persecution was small to non-existent."

It's a stretch to compare this to a comprehensive ban towards all people of a certain nationality, because those people are related to countries which are related to a religion that is related to terrorism. People with a UK dual-membership are banned, people who are well-known critics of Islam are banned, I could go on. I don't know jackshit about the legal side, but this looks pretty new and unprecedented. So, comparing this to refugee-preferences to undermine a genuine world threat (the Soviet Union) is crazy.

Anyway, overall, this looks kinda dumb, and seems like a dick move besides. I imagined banning Islamic immigration was unfeasible and ridiculous anyway, but I didn't think they'd just pick on the poor shitholes that the rest of the world kicks into the dirt, to appease people more worried about ragheads than cancer.

[thedougler]

Except for maybe breaking our constitutional right to freedom of speech: https://boingboing.net/2017/01/25/tru...s-a-ban-o.html

Because the speech of scientists representing a government is totally equal to the speech of individuals representing themselves, right? I could scream from the rooftops about how I think global warming is a chinese hoax, and so long as I'm willing to live with the consequences to my professional career that is fine. But you need to realize that the moment I do so purporting to represent the view of a larger organization the equation has changed.

There's no point banning those countries if they're not actually contributing to terrorism though. If this isn't actually doing much to stop terrorism, then it's just a political gesture.

"Nothing Trump has done so far is illegal or even unprecedented. The Lautenberg Amendment of 1989 was very similar in that it gave preference to religious minorities (mostly Jews and Ruthenian Catholics) in the Soviet Union and gave them refugee status even if the fear of persecution was small to non-existent."

It's a stretch to compare this to a comprehensive ban towards all people of a certain nationality, because those people are related to countries which are related to a religion that is related to terrorism. People with a UK dual-membership are banned, people who are well-known critics of Islam are banned, I could go on. I don't know jackshit about the legal side, but this looks pretty new and unprecedented. So, comparing this to refugee-preferences to undermine a genuine world threat (the Soviet Union) is crazy.

Anyway, overall, this looks kinda dumb, and seems like a dick move besides. I imagined banning Islamic immigration was unfeasible and ridiculous anyway, but I didn't think they'd just pick on the poor shitholes that the rest of the world kicks into the dirt, to appease people more worried about ragheads than cancer.

I'm not comparing it with the ban, I'm comparing it to the new shape of refugee admissions policy after the ban:

Upon the resumption of USRAP admissions, the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, is further directed to make changes, to the extent permitted by law, to prioritize refugee claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution, provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual’s country of nationality.

In effect Middle-Eastern Christians will get higher priority than Muslims for those 50,000 slots, just how Jews from the Soviet Union previously had priority over everyone else.

[Apocist]

Because the speech of scientists representing a government is totally equal to the speech of individuals representing themselves, right? I could scream from the rooftops about how I think global warming is a chinese hoax, and so long as I'm willing to live with the consequences to my professional career that is fine. But you need to realize that the moment I do so purporting to represent the view of a larger organization the equation has changed.

Equal is not a term that either the populace or the government should define. The fact that it hinders the ability to keep the government in check with censoring is dangerous.

[PowersThatBe]

Nothing Trump has done so far is illegal or even unprecedented. The Lautenberg Amendment of 1989 was very similar in that it gave preference to religious minorities (mostly Jews and Ruthenian Catholics) in the Soviet Union and gave them refugee status even if the fear of persecution was small to non-existent. The left really has no legal leg to stand on here.

Even if his order was illegal I'd still support it tbh, but I can't see how it is. The way it's worded makes clear that national origin isn't the deciding factor behind the ban.

Two federal judges and the ACLU disagree with you. Trump also changed the Visa/Greencard portion of the executive order. So, really, the "left" does and still does have a "legal leg to stand on." Regardless, whether anything he did was legal or not...it was stupid to do it as he did it and as quickly as he did it.

Truth be told, he doesn't even have a Sec. of State yet, and he's making piss poor foreign affairs decisions. Choosing to ban people from those countries is only proving ISIS's point...and ultimately is hurting America's good standing in the world.

In the past week trump has pissed off 7 arab nations, and mexico. British citizens are already calling for their PM to cancel his visit.

He is a disaster, this is a disaster.

This ban is unwarranted, it's borderline unconstitutional (if not entirely unconstitutional) and it's roll out was awful and many innocent people were caught in the cross fire. This does nothing to "keep our borders safe." In fact it radicalizes people against america, but this is seen as a xenophobic act. So, good job mr. president. Idiot.

[PowersThatBe]

Because the speech of scientists representing a government is totally equal to the speech of individuals representing themselves, right? I could scream from the rooftops about how I think global warming is a chinese hoax, and so long as I'm willing to live with the consequences to my professional career that is fine. But you need to realize that the moment I do so purporting to represent the view of a larger organization the equation has changed.



I'm not comparing it with the ban, I'm comparing it to the new shape of refugee admissions policy after the ban:

Upon the resumption of USRAP admissions, the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, is further directed to make changes, to the extent permitted by law, to prioritize refugee claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution, provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual’s country of nationality.

In effect Middle-Eastern Christians will get higher priority than Muslims for those 50,000 slots, just how Jews from the Soviet Union previously had priority over everyone else.

Also, go watch Chris Wallace's interview with Kelly Ann Conway. Guess, what? 37,000 CHRISTIAN middle easterners and about 38,000 Muslim middle eastern were admitted previously. There is no reason to give priority to christians over muslims. That is discrimination AGAINST RELIGION. There wasn't a large discrepancy between christians and muslims entering the country before, so his reasoning IS A LIE.

Again, this comes from FOX news the STEWARD of the conservative voice. NOT FAKE NEWS.

[PowersThatBe]

Also, @thedougler , you're 1000000000000000000% wrong. His ban on refugees is a violation of the Geneva Convention, to which we signed. We have to take in refugees.

Also watch this:

[PowersThatBe]

Also @thedougler , you're 1000000000000000000% wrong. His ban on refugees is a violation of the Geneva Convention, to which we signed. We have to take in refugees.

Also watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zufPMbRnUVo

[thedougler]

LOL International Law is, was and always will be a joke (until the whole world is united under one government). As it exists it benefits the rich countries who bankroll the UN, to which America contributes twice as much as the next largest contributor. Violations are flagrantly disregarded whenever the laws drafted at The Hague are deemed inconvenient at the national level. Even petty dictators can avoid its judgements so long as they stay in their borders or don't travel to countries who will extradict them.

The laws are unenforceable in most cases and violations going unpunished is more the rule than the exception. At the worst some economic sanctions will be agreed upon but even then the people rather than the leaders suffer from them. Plus there are always rogue nations who run the blockade for quick profit (eg. when Israel was a diehard supporter of Appartheid South Africa), because everything is 100% voluntary.

The U.S. isn't Germany in 1945 with 4 pissed off occupying powers looking to throw the book at a defeated enemy. International Law has always lacked a consistent enforcement mechanism and if you think it is at all relevant here the joke is on you. If the ACLU is looking beyond America's own laws for validation they must be truly desperate.

Congress has already totally disregarded the Geneva Conventions. From the Military Comissions Act of 2006:

No person may invoke the Geneva Conventions, or any protocols thereto, in any habeas or civil action or proceeding to which the United States, or a current or former officer, employee, member of the Armed Forces, or other agent of the United States, is a party, as a source of rights in any court of the United States or its States or territories.

And the U.S. is hardly alone. Russia, China, France, etc. have all violated international laws and treaties in the past (or even the present) and suffered/are suffering few if any serious consequences. Russia is currently facing economic sanctions but that is more due to Obama-era geopolitics than a good-faith attempt to uphold international law. If Hitler has taught us anything it's that treaties mean nothing if there is no army backing them. When he invaded Poland he had already made a farce of the Treaty of Versailles by remilitarizing the Rhineland, annexing Austria and then occupying Czechoslovakia. He had little reason to believe Britain and France would finally respect their international obligations in 1939, and was probably caught somewhat by surprise when the declarations of war came.

[thedougler]

Fuck 16 posts in and I already proved Godwin's Law. Why must Hitler/WW2 be so relevant in every context?

[Helz]

Except for maybe breaking our constitutional right to freedom of speech: https://boingboing.net/2017/01/25/tru...s-a-ban-o.html

https://boingboing.net ?? Where do you guys even find these web sights..

Honestly.. Fuck refugees. They get better benefits than any non-politician American using our tax dollars.

I also suspect the driving reason for that list is more based upon the nations relations and interactions than Trumps business ties. Business ties are kinda generated with country's we are friendly with in most cases.

This conversation reminds me of all the republicans screaming "ABOOOOSE" when Obama was passing executive orders all over the place. Its all hype. I really hope one day people get burnt out and numb to it to the point conversations become fact driven instead of pandering speculation to justify bias.

[PowersThatBe]

@thedougler -- nice cherry picking what I said. The ACLU didn't invoke the Geneva convention. The chancellor of Germany had to call Donald trump and explain to him...

And after she did...he's changed it and is going to take some refugees...just accept that Donald trump is a moron and one day, even you will turn on him.

[thedougler]

@thedougler -- nice cherry picking what I said. The ACLU didn't invoke the Geneva convention. The chancellor of Germany had to call Donald trump and explain to him...

And after she did...he's changed it and is going to take some refugees...just accept that Donald trump is a moron and one day, even you will turn on him.

I didn't cherry pick. The ACLU guy brought up imternational law after mentioning "muh first amendment religious persecution". The interviewer then specifically referenced the Geneva Conventions right at the end.

Also LOL at anyone taking advice from Merkel. She literally covered up the rapefugee crisis to prevent a political backlash. She also totally cucked her country and because the refugees skew younger than the general population, this will guarantee yet another non-productive non-assimilated minority like the Turks. The 1.5 million young Afghans, Syrians, etc. admitted since 2015 will reach 10-15% of the population in the next generation as native Germans cease to reproduce, and the second generation is always far more radicalized than the first.....

I know Trump is a moron, but he's a smarter and more ethical moron than the rest we've had in power. He's keeping his promises and taking heat for it like his supporters knew he would. I am at least 90% pleased with everything he's done so far.

If you're bringing up Merkel as an example... The left must really be desperate. She makes dog-whistle groans against the "failure of multi-culturalism" whenever elections draw close. Then when her mandate is secured she opens the floodgates to the Third World hordes. Typical bought-and-paid-for, spineless, neo-lib TRASH. Just like Cameron, Harper, and Sarkozy. When Mark Fuckerberg is praising your politicians you're in big trouble lmao.

[oops_ur_dead]

Honestly.. Fuck refugees. They get better benefits than any non-politician American using our tax dollars.

You realize that this isn't only about refugees? The order bans anyone who holds nationality or dual citizenship from any of those 7 countries from coming to the US, even if they had pre-approved green cards (though that part was overturned) and visas. My friend who came to Canada from Somalia when he was a baby and has lived here for his whole life isn't allowed to enter the US now. The vast majority of people affected by this aren't refugees.

This conversation reminds me of all the republicans screaming "ABOOOOSE" when Obama was passing executive orders all over the place. Its all hype. I really hope one day people get burnt out and numb to it to the point conversations become fact driven instead of pandering speculation to justify bias.

At this point I get the feeling that remaining stubbornly "impartial" is more important to you than actually being "fact driven". Obama's first few executive orders, with the exception of closing Guantanamo (which never actually happened), were nowhere as controversial as Trump's first week of executive orders. There is no way you can actually, objectively say that the anti-Trump controversy is the same as the opposition to Obama, given how Trump's approval rating is the lowest of any president (and disapproval the highest), he won with substantially fewer votes than his opponent, influential GOP figures like McCain and Graham have started to stand up to him, world leaders have staunchly opposed his actions, and Obama has already spoken out against him. Some racists and reactionaries in Republican states and GOP politicians speaking out against Obama is nowhere near the same.

I'm willing to wager that if Trump started a civil war and nuked California you'd go on about how America was screwed no matter how the election went because Clinton was endorsed by Saudi Arabia and Obama drone striked American citizens so really it isn't too much different and everyone just needs to simmer down.

[thedougler]

You realize that this isn't only about refugees? The order bans anyone who holds nationality or dual citizenship from any of those 7 countries from coming to the US, even if they had pre-approved green cards (though that part was overturned) and visas. My friend who came to Canada from Somalia when he was a baby and has lived here for his whole life isn't allowed to enter the US now. The vast majority of people affected by this aren't refugees.



At this point I get the feeling that remaining stubbornly "impartial" is more important to you than actually being "fact driven". Obama's first few executive orders, with the exception of closing Guantanamo (which never actually happened), were nowhere as controversial as Trump's first week of executive orders. There is no way you can actually, objectively say that the anti-Trump controversy is the same as the opposition to Obama, given how Trump's approval rating is the lowest of any president (and disapproval the highest), he won with substantially fewer votes than his opponent, influential GOP figures like McCain and Graham have started to stand up to him, world leaders have staunchly opposed his actions, and Obama has already spoken out against him. Some racists and reactionaries in Republican states and GOP politicians speaking out against Obama is nowhere near the same.

I'm willing to wager that if Trump started a civil war and nuked California you'd go on about how America was screwed no matter how the election went because Clinton was endorsed by Saudi Arabia and Obama drone striked American citizens so really it isn't too much different and everyone just needs to simmer down.

Do I get to make predictions too? I'm willing to wager that if Donald Trump just acts on his campaign promises and eliminates illegal immigration and substantially lowers legal immigration, all while delivering 4% GDP growth the left will still hate his guts no matter what!

Trump should wear Juan MexiCain and Lindsey Grahamnesty's disapproval as a badge of honor. Those traiterous Gang if Eighters have been working hard to undermine American labor for a long time. If they start saying nice things about Trump I'll be really worried.

[BananaCucho]

Fuck Trump

[thedougler]

Fuck Trump

How edifying.


In other news, I read a very calm and reasoned defense of Trump's order on CNN of all places. The author, a black woman, posted a photo of herself prominently near the top of the piece in order to completely disarm all SJW cries of "racism!". A masterstroke.

https://www.cnn.com/2017/01/30/opinio...ion/index.html

[SilverWolf]

How edifying.


In other news, I read a very calm and reasoned defense of Trump's order on CNN of all places. The author, a black woman, posted a photo of herself prominently near the top of the piece in order to completely disarm all SJW cries of "racism!". A masterstroke.

https://www.cnn.com/2017/01/30/opinio...ion/index.html

It's an opinion piece. Of course you like it if it agrees with your opinion. Those that don't agree, won't. It really doesn't mean anything other than that. Who cares what color her skin is? How does being black suddenly make it a masterpiece? LOL

[Helz]

You realize that this isn't only about refugees? The order bans anyone who holds nationality or dual citizenship from any of those 7 countries from coming to the US, even if they had pre-approved green cards (though that part was overturned) and visas. My friend who came to Canada from Somalia when he was a baby and has lived here for his whole life isn't allowed to enter the US now. The vast majority of people affected by this aren't refugees.

That sounds like a real issue if its true; I honestly am skeptical that any 'American citizen' is getting banned. If that was a thing it would be shouted from the rooftops. Not squeaked from obscure 3rd party news sites on social media..
But I strongly dislike how our refugee and immigration systems work. If your an average joe refugee you get more benefits than a 100% disabled veteran and will start out off the bat living better than a massive portion of Americans. Thats tax payers coughing up for people who have done nothing for the country and its wrong. I believe in charity but people should not be obligated to be charitable. The government should not demand to take your money and give it to someone unless that person rates it for giving some contribution to the country.
Nobody would ever complain about immigration if it did not function like a charity. I dont care if they want a better life- what are they bringing to the table to help the country? If America needs more engineers lets immigrate some over. They get their better life and we get a needed workforce. Instead its just some nonsense about how everyone immigrated here at some point. Like thats not true for pretty much every other country in the world regardless of if you are an evolutionist or a creationist. The semantics in that line of argument have always been a total joke.

At this point I get the feeling that remaining stubbornly "impartial" is more important to you than actually being "fact driven". Obama's first few executive orders, with the exception of closing Guantanamo (which never actually happened), were nowhere as controversial as Trump's first week of executive orders. There is no way you can actually, objectively say that the anti-Trump controversy is the same as the opposition to Obama, given how Trump's approval rating is the lowest of any president (and disapproval the highest), he won with substantially fewer votes than his opponent, influential GOP figures like McCain and Graham have started to stand up to him, world leaders have staunchly opposed his actions, and Obama has already spoken out against him. Some racists and reactionaries in Republican states and GOP politicians speaking out against Obama is nowhere near the same.

I'm willing to wager that if Trump started a civil war and nuked California you'd go on about how America was screwed no matter how the election went because Clinton was endorsed by Saudi Arabia and Obama drone striked American citizens so really it isn't too much different and everyone just needs to simmer down.

I can totally say that it is. If anything its just a progressive movement to generate nonsense that justify s bias because people have realized they can make money doing it. Remember when Obama was a Muslim / Non American / Terrorist sympathizer for how he said ISIS / Socialist for his programs ect? Tons of totally batshit stupid arguments floating around social media with very little founding. Fortunately bullshit does not survive the test of time. Like a few weeks back when there was some 'report' about Trump being controlled by Russia. It sounded legit as fuck until people looked at it for 2 seconds and it faded like a fart in the wind.
To be fair I am not saying Trump is right or that his actions are appropriate. But I am 100% saying he takes as much if not 10 times more crap with no factual reasoning.

I would also argue that the electoral college specifically functions to eliminate the ability of a one party state to dictate elections for the nation. Just look at the election:
States won: Trump +10
Electoral votes won: Trump + 68
Average margin of victory in winning states: Trump +2.4%
Counties won: Trump 2623 vs Hillary 489
Popular vote total: Clinton +2.8 Million
Popular vote total (Excluding California): Trump +1.4 Million
And this year for California no republicans ran for Senate, No republicans ran for the House seats.
California is totally a 1 party state and its margin of republican vs democrat was a 17% larger gap than the election 8 years ago while there has been a 13% gap in new vote registrations for democrats vs new republicans. The only reason the popular vote was anywhere near close is because in the Hillary states (Or more likely the anti-trump states who just voted for her to keep him out) had a disproportional margin of voters sliding one way.
I would equate this argument to when people try to blame Obama for doubling the national debt. Yeah he is responsible for maybe 2.5 - 3.5 trillion of it and contributed more than any president in history before him but although it is true the national debt doubled when you start to dig into the numbers that argument is bullshit. The largest portion of that debt is a result of the decrease in national revenue which is attributed to the crash of the economy and the tax cuts Bush put into play.

Btw- If Trump Nuked California I would giggle. I say that and I lived there for 4 years. A significant amount of people in that state are kinda shitty human beings from my experience. If you go to New York or Chicago there may be assholes everywhere but they are still good people.

[thedougler]

It's an opinion piece. Of course you like it if it agrees with your opinion. Those that don't agree, won't. It really doesn't mean anything other than that. Who cares what color her skin is? How does being black suddenly make it a masterpiece? LOL

I didn't say her being black made it a masterpiece. I said that her showing her face was a "masterstroke". It's a shame it has to be this way but the mere fact that she is black will shut down 100% of the arguments the left could have used against her piece. Namely, "racist, racist, racist." Among the regressive left the pro-Trump arguments she uses go a lot further coming from someone like her than from someone like me.

[thedougler]

I would also argue that the electoral college specifically functions to eliminate the ability of a one party state to dictate elections for the nation. Just look at the election:
States won: Trump +10
Electoral votes won: Trump + 68
Average margin of victory in winning states: Trump +2.4%
Counties won: Trump 2623 vs Hillary 489
Popular vote total: Clinton +2.8 Million
Popular vote total (Excluding California): Trump +1.4 Million
And this year for California no republicans ran for Senate, No republicans ran for the House seats.
California is totally a 1 party state and its margin of republican vs democrat was a 17% larger gap than the election 8 years ago while there has been a 13% gap in new vote registrations for democrats vs new republicans. The only reason the popular vote was anywhere near close is because in the Hillary states (Or more likely the anti-trump states who just voted for her to keep him out) had a disproportional margin of voters sliding one way.
I would equate this argument to when people try to blame Obama for doubling the national debt. Yeah he is responsible for maybe 2.5 - 3.5 trillion of it and contributed more than any president in history before him but although it is true the national debt doubled when you start to dig into the numbers that argument is bullshit. The largest portion of that debt is a result of the decrease in national revenue which is attributed to the crash of the economy and the tax cuts Bush put into play.

Btw- If Trump Nuked California I would giggle. I say that and I lived there for 4 years. A significant amount of people in that state are kinda shitty human beings from my experience. If you go to New York or Chicago there may be assholes everywhere but they are still good people.

Congressional Republicans held their 14 House seats in 2016 just to correct you (out of the state's 53 total). But yeah the state has come a long way since they voted decisively for Bush Sr. in 1988. Lots of people forget that California was seen as a Republican stronghold into the 1980s. Then all the illegals started having kids, on top of unprecedented levels of legal immigration. The demographic replacement became a political replacement. Non-Hispanic whites are an endangered breed there now and the few that remain are looking to greener pastures in Texas and anywhere with a better cost of living. In less than 40 years it went from paradise on earth to Mexico 2.0.

But the old adage, "as California goes, so goes the country" is true as ever. The other 49 states are demographically where California was about 20 years ago.

[Orpz]

Btw- If Trump Nuked California I would giggle. I say that and I lived there for 4 years. A significant amount of people in that state are kinda shitty human beings from my experience. If you go to New York or Chicago there may be assholes everywhere but they are still good people.

It's actually really sad that you think this, considering all of the times you showed genuine compassion and respect when talking to other people. For all the political differences I have with Trump, his administrations, and his voters, I would never delight in the thought of violence against them.

[Orpz]

Congressional Republicans held their 14 House seats in 2016 just to correct you (out of the state's 53 total). But yeah the state has come a long way since they voted decisively for Bush Sr. in 1988. Lots of people forget that California was seen as a Republican stronghold into the 1980s. Then all the illegals started having kids, on top of unprecedented levels of legal immigration. The demographic replacement became a political replacement. Non-Hispanic whites are an endangered breed there now and the few that remain are looking to greener pastures in Texas and anywhere with a better cost of living. In less than 40 years it went from paradise on earth to Mexico 2.0.

But the old adage, "as California goes, so goes the country" is true as ever. The other 49 states are demographically where California was about 20 years ago.

California GSP per Capita is $62,000, which is around the same as Norway's, and standard of living is one of the best in the entire country. In any list you find of best suburbs to live in, I would bet that Irvine, Newport Beach, Lake Forest, Rancho Santa Margarita, San Marcos, Rancho Cucamonga, Fountain Valley will make an appearance. And those are just the ones within an hour from my house.

Los Angeles has the most famous cultural icons in America, such as Hollywood and Beverly Hills, and projects American culture onto the world. San Francisco is one of the leading tourism and technology cities in America. We also have the best public universities in the world, and two of the best private universities in the world (Stanford and Caltech).

Our rural areas are also really nice and their work is a pride of our state (I refer you here to the state's massive agricultural economy and famous national park services). The state politics is where it gets tricky; part of the difficulty in convincing rural residents to vote Democrat is the fact that they don't get to see their tax dollars at work as frequently as urban voters do. Politicians generally don't budget for improving rural roads, infrastructure, etc. So it's not hard to see where the frustration that rural voters have towards Democrats stem from. This is an issue I think our state will be struggling with for years to come, but for the meantime, I would honestly say California has some of the nicest rural land and the social programs, such as Medi-cal and Cal-grant, reach out to every resident, urban and rural. Taxes are expensive to pay for programs, yes, but there is no place I'd rather see my money go than back to the people.

So what did you mean by California is Mexico 2.0? Surely you couldn't have been talking about the quality of life here. If you meant demographics, then that's a valid point, but as a lifelong California resident, I can tell you that no matter the color of the people here, we all do love the red, white, and blue.

[thedougler]

The cost of living in California is just not worth it for people trying to raise a family or struggling to get by. The average house is $437,000, vs $179,000 for the U.S. as a whole (in 2015). That $62,000 doesn't go very far all things considered. That's before getting into the traffic, the overpopulation, above average unemployment, the beyond-repair statehouse politics, the insane taxes on everything, regulations and red-tape, etc.

It's basically a warmer Canada with more horrific income inequality. Seriously just look at San Francisco today, it's just a playground for the rich. There are good incomes to be had but the regulations and vested interests of homeowners have created a massive housing shortage so the poor are losing out.

Most of the cities grew out rather than up, a product of urban planning in the age of the automobile, and now scar the landscape with massive low-density sprawl. Most attempts to correct this by building more densely in the urban centers is resisted tooth and nail by legions of busybodies. The recent drought shows just how much the state is straining due to overpopulation and poor management. And it seems like the forests are always on fire. Don't get me wrong there are plenty of great things about California, but it's not the empty frontier of endless promise it was for most of the 20th century. The frontier has definitively closed, and the spirit of individualism is dead.

[MattZed]

@Helz , your argument about California being a 1-party state is simply factually off. Yes, most state-wide winners are Democrats, but there are often serious Republican candidates, and the state hasn't been this Democratic for long. You say Republicans didn't run a senator, but that's because California has a top-two primary, and Democrats got the top two. (although Republican candidates picked up 31% of the vote, it was split among smaller candidates) As pointed out

This of course sidesteps the issue at hand: why should people have their vote count for less because they live near people who vote like they do?

Further, the electoral college does nothing to prevent heavily red/blue states from controlling discourse; if 1% of Floridians and Pennsylvanians changed their votes from Trump to Clinton, then Clinton would have won the electoral college, even though the nation didn't change that much. And California isn't the only state that's strongly red or blue; just because a blue state didn't win doesn't mean strong red states did nothing.

[MattZed]

But it's worrying, @Helz , that you present things as facts that simply aren't true. Refugees in the US are not paid more than disabled veterans. They are given a small amount of money to cover moving and living expenses for their first few months, and then that's it.

The Veterans Affairs budget is $180 Billion. The refugee budget is $1 Billion.

[oops_ur_dead]

That sounds like a real issue if its true; I honestly am skeptical that any 'American citizen' is getting banned. If that was a thing it would be shouted from the rooftops. Not squeaked from obscure 3rd party news sites on social media..
But I strongly dislike how our refugee and immigration systems work. If your an average joe refugee you get more benefits than a 100% disabled veteran and will start out off the bat living better than a massive portion of Americans. Thats tax payers coughing up for people who have done nothing for the country and its wrong. I believe in charity but people should not be obligated to be charitable. The government should not demand to take your money and give it to someone unless that person rates it for giving some contribution to the country.
Nobody would ever complain about immigration if it did not function like a charity. I dont care if they want a better life- what are they bringing to the table to help the country? If America needs more engineers lets immigrate some over. They get their better life and we get a needed workforce. Instead its just some nonsense about how everyone immigrated here at some point. Like thats not true for pretty much every other country in the world regardless of if you are an evolutionist or a creationist. The semantics in that line of argument have always been a total joke.



I can totally say that it is. If anything its just a progressive movement to generate nonsense that justify s bias because people have realized they can make money doing it. Remember when Obama was a Muslim / Non American / Terrorist sympathizer for how he said ISIS / Socialist for his programs ect? Tons of totally batshit stupid arguments floating around social media with very little founding. Fortunately bullshit does not survive the test of time. Like a few weeks back when there was some 'report' about Trump being controlled by Russia. It sounded legit as fuck until people looked at it for 2 seconds and it faded like a fart in the wind.
To be fair I am not saying Trump is right or that his actions are appropriate. But I am 100% saying he takes as much if not 10 times more crap with no factual reasoning.

I would also argue that the electoral college specifically functions to eliminate the ability of a one party state to dictate elections for the nation. Just look at the election:
States won: Trump +10
Electoral votes won: Trump + 68
Average margin of victory in winning states: Trump +2.4%
Counties won: Trump 2623 vs Hillary 489
Popular vote total: Clinton +2.8 Million
Popular vote total (Excluding California): Trump +1.4 Million
And this year for California no republicans ran for Senate, No republicans ran for the House seats.
California is totally a 1 party state and its margin of republican vs democrat was a 17% larger gap than the election 8 years ago while there has been a 13% gap in new vote registrations for democrats vs new republicans. The only reason the popular vote was anywhere near close is because in the Hillary states (Or more likely the anti-trump states who just voted for her to keep him out) had a disproportional margin of voters sliding one way.
I would equate this argument to when people try to blame Obama for doubling the national debt. Yeah he is responsible for maybe 2.5 - 3.5 trillion of it and contributed more than any president in history before him but although it is true the national debt doubled when you start to dig into the numbers that argument is bullshit. The largest portion of that debt is a result of the decrease in national revenue which is attributed to the crash of the economy and the tax cuts Bush put into play.

Btw- If Trump Nuked California I would giggle. I say that and I lived there for 4 years. A significant amount of people in that state are kinda shitty human beings from my experience. If you go to New York or Chicago there may be assholes everywhere but they are still good people.

You completely misunderstood my point. I wasn't stating an opinion on any of those topics. I was pointing out how you post under the guise of being "impartial" and you want everyone to look at things rationally and consider the facts, yet all you've posted is Trump apologetics. You're pretty much making up facts on the spot to support what Trump is doing and trying to claim that the drama surrounding everything is just regular controversy and all of this happened under Obama, when it's apparent that all of this is on a whole other level than the reaction to what Obama was doing. I'm just saying that it's more than a bit disingenuous of you to pretend to not take sides when you're clearly on board with Trump.

[Yukitaka Oni]

Donald-Trump-Very-Funny-Meme-Picture-For-Whatsapp.jpg
hqdefault.jpg

[Helz]

It's actually really sad that you think this, considering all of the times you showed genuine compassion and respect when talking to other people. For all the political differences I have with Trump, his administrations, and his voters, I would never delight in the thought of violence against them.

Was a bad joke. My bad?

But it's worrying, @Helz , that you present things as facts that simply aren't true. Refugees in the US are not paid more than disabled veterans. They are given a small amount of money to cover moving and living expenses for their first few months, and then that's it.

The Veterans Affairs budget is $180 Billion. The refugee budget is $1 Billion.

I am not talking about the budget. I am talking about the benefits an individual family receives. I know this because I literally work with refugees in the greater Austin area.

[Helz]

You completely misunderstood my point. I wasn't stating an opinion on any of those topics. I was pointing out how you post under the guise of being "impartial" and you want everyone to look at things rationally and consider the facts, yet all you've posted is Trump apologetics. You're pretty much making up facts on the spot to support what Trump is doing and trying to claim that the drama surrounding everything is just regular controversy and all of this happened under Obama, when it's apparent that all of this is on a whole other level than the reaction to what Obama was doing. I'm just saying that it's more than a bit disingenuous of you to pretend to not take sides when you're clearly on board with Trump.

Correct me if I am wrong. I totally could be in my above points. But it was based upon numbers I found from what I believe to be reliable sources. I would stand behind my electoral college argument every bit as much as I will stand behind my obama debt argument.

But I think if I were to dig up the fase points taken against Trump vs the false points taken against Obama I could draw a very clear picture. Just the other day I had a recommended youtube video pop up about how Trump wants to fuck his daughter. Not even kidding..

The only reason Trump is in office is because he ran against Hillary. She was just so god awful that the public sided with Trump. I think the whole 'popularity vote' idea is flat out cherry picking and I am very happy she is not president. If you think I am biased and on the Trump train all I can say is "Lol." He is a total clown who never should have been elected or even given the chance to run.

[MattZed]

Was a bad joke. My bad?

I am not talking about the budget. I am talking about the benefits an individual family receives. I know this because I literally work with refugees in the greater Austin area.

I'm not really talking about budget either, but using it as a point that this shouldn't really pass sanity checks. If you think the government gives more to refugees than to disabled vets, you're either greatly overestimating refugee benefits or underestimating disabled veterans' benefits.

From the VA itself, a 100% disabled veteran living alone with no dependents gets $2915 a month. These are lifetime benefits. Refugee cash payments don't exceed $1000/mo, and don't last for the rest of the refugee's life. (costs vary by state because the federal government gives states cash for refugees)

[Helz]

I'm not really talking about budget either, but using it as a point that this shouldn't really pass sanity checks. If you think the government gives more to refugees than to disabled vets, you're either greatly overestimating refugee benefits or underestimating disabled veterans' benefits.

From the VA itself, a 100% disabled veteran living alone with no dependents gets $2915 a month. These are lifetime benefits. Refugee cash payments don't exceed $1000/mo, and don't last for the rest of the refugee's life. (costs vary by state because the federal government gives states cash for refugees)

There is actually 3 different kinds of 100% disabled for vets but I will not go into that; but its not as simple as "100% = x $$$" I am a disabled vet and I do believe they get a better deal than 100% disabled vets. Or at least the ones in the community in Austin do.

Setting that aside I do not agree with a nation obligating its citizens to give up their money so it can be spent on charity that is not for the citizens of that nation. That practice is just wrong.

[MattZed]

There is actually 3 different kinds of 100% disabled for vets but I will not go into that; but its not as simple as "100% = x $$$" I am a disabled vet and I do believe they get a better deal than 100% disabled vets. Or at least the ones in the community in Austin do.

Setting that aside I do not agree with a nation obligating its citizens to give up their money so it can be spent on charity that is not for the citizens of that nation. That practice is just wrong.

I'm aware it's more complicated than just one figure, but the "refugees get more money than X" where X is veterans, retirees, what have you, is a popular misconception that I'm fine to keep discussing. If you have numbers to support your point, go ahead and share them.

If you're going to maintain that tax money going to anything that isn't directly related to US citizens is immoral, you're having a far too simplistic view of the matter. Refugees amount for less than .0005 of the federal budget. Sure, that money could be spent elsewhere, but it has a huge ROI in the form of refugee contributions to our economy and making our nation not look like an asshole. The US benefits from living in a safer and more peaceful world, and it's harder to lead that world when we can't afford to help in the largest humanitarian crisis of our time.

[yzb25]

Update: It appears the green card / dual citizenship situation has been clarified - if you leave the US then reenter and have a dual citizenship with a non-banned country and/or have a green card you will be allowed back in.

"This is our message to them: get on a plane. Come back to the US. You will be subject to secondary screening, but everything else will be normal," the Homeland Security official told CNN. - CNN

This confusion didn't come out of thin air though:

Adding to the confusion, Trump administration officials seemed to at times contradict themselves during appearances on Sunday news shows. In mere minutes during an interview with NBC, White House chief of staff Reince Priebus said the order "doesn't affect" green card holders, then later said "of course" it affects green card holders from Iran, Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Libya, Yemen and Somalia -- the seven countries Trump has temporarily stop immigration from for 90 days. - CNN

https://edition.cnn.com/2017/01/29/po...dual-citizens/

Like, on a theoretical level I have no problem with the US being difficult about letting certain groups in due to suspected terrorism, but all these countries had a really rigorous process to get a VISA anyway, and they missed all the countries that actually partake in terrorism. Let's be real, this law is just a dick move, and a sort of long-term popularity investment.

This has been implemented so badly. The incompetence-levels are actually triggering. A 90-day ban is like a tiny fraction of the 24-36 month rigorous background check process that people from these countries must do to immigrate to the US anyway LOL. If they actually plan to extend the ban beyond 90 days... Holy shit o.o

Anyway:

I'm not comparing it with the ban, I'm comparing it to the new shape of refugee admissions policy after the ban:

Upon the resumption of USRAP admissions, the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, is further directed to make changes, to the extent permitted by law, to prioritize refugee claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution, provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual’s country of nationality.

In effect Middle-Eastern Christians will get higher priority than Muslims for those 50,000 slots, just how Jews from the Soviet Union previously had priority over everyone else.

Getting into an argument about this is unproductive, as it's not really the crux of either of our points. However, banning every citizen of a country, regardless of refugee shenanigans, is clearly a separate matter.

[SuperJack]

Just ban everyone. Problem solved.

[Gyrlander]

Just ban everyone. Problem solved.

Only pure Americans allowed.

HAIL MY FÜHRER

[oops_ur_dead]

The only reason Trump is in office is because he ran against Hillary. She was just so god awful that the public sided with Trump. I think the whole 'popularity vote' idea is flat out cherry picking and I am very happy she is not president.

You know you can look this up yourself, right? The majority of PEOPLE (not states or counties or whatever the fuck you have in the US) voted for Clinton. Yes Trump won but more people voted for Hillary. This isn't cherry picking, and saying the public "sided with Trump" because he won due to a flawed electoral system is absurd. Would you also say that the public in North Korea sides with Kim Jong-Un because he wins every (obviously rigged) election they have?

Similarly, in Canada we have a election system much like the electoral college, and because of massive strategic voting (that I admittedly was a part of in the last election, and perpetrated by voting for a candidate that wasn't my preferred candidate but was better than the alternative) the last two governments had a majority of the seats with about 40% of the vote. The electoral college system and FPTP voting in general is objectively one of the worst possible voting systems, and only exists in the US because when the US was founded and had their first elections they didn't have the internet and phones and shit and had to actually send representatives on fucking horses to vote on behalf of their state.

If you think I am biased and on the Trump train all I can say is "Lol." He is a total clown who never should have been elected or even given the chance to run.

I'm sure you've heard the adage "actions speak louder than words". In this case, you take every opportunity to defend Trump, his actions, the means he got elected by, and dismiss the controversy surrounding him. When you constantly express support for what he's doing, I'm sure you can understand why your statements of "oh btw i dont actually like trump" don't seem very genuine.

[Helz]

I'm aware it's more complicated than just one figure, but the "refugees get more money than X" where X is veterans, retirees, what have you, is a popular misconception that I'm fine to keep discussing. If you have numbers to support your point, go ahead and share them.

If you're going to maintain that tax money going to anything that isn't directly related to US citizens is immoral, you're having a far too simplistic view of the matter. Refugees amount for less than .0005 of the federal budget. Sure, that money could be spent elsewhere, but it has a huge ROI in the form of refugee contributions to our economy and making our nation not look like an asshole. The US benefits from living in a safer and more peaceful world, and it's harder to lead that world when we can't afford to help in the largest humanitarian crisis of our time.

You said so yourself that its a billion dollars. That may be a drop in the bucket compared to the federal budget but that is big money that could go to help Americans. We have plenty of Americans homeless on the street. We have a huge issue finding good homes for orphans and our elderly could use more assistance in their healthcare now that the 'affordable healthcare act' somehow made good treatment less affordable. It may not be a 'nice' or a 'cool' position for me to take but they straight up do not rate our federal tax money. That is what charity is for. The governments appropriate way of 'assisting' them is to provide tax breaks as incentives for corporations and individuals the help that they need. I am not saying we should not help them as a nation- I am just saying I feel that demanding the citizens of a nation to pay you money so you can give it away to others is some robin hood bullshit and an inappropriate practice.

You know you can look this up yourself, right? The majority of PEOPLE (not states or counties or whatever the fuck you have in the US) voted for Clinton. Yes Trump won but more people voted for Hillary. This isn't cherry picking, and saying the public "sided with Trump" because he won due to a flawed electoral system is absurd. Would you also say that the public in North Korea sides with Kim Jong-Un because he wins every (obviously rigged) election they have?

Similarly, in Canada we have a election system much like the electoral college, and because of massive strategic voting (that I admittedly was a part of in the last election, and perpetrated by voting for a candidate that wasn't my preferred candidate but was better than the alternative) the last two governments had a majority of the seats with about 40% of the vote. The electoral college system and FPTP voting in general is objectively one of the worst possible voting systems, and only exists in the US because when the US was founded and had their first elections they didn't have the internet and phones and shit and had to actually send representatives on fucking horses to vote on behalf of their state.

My understanding was that its roots were from England where the poor locals could not afford to travel to vote so they would proxi their vote to whatever local noble who would make a vote that was suppose to be in their best interest. Is that necessary? No. But the justification for keeping it has been that it limits 1 states ability to curve an election to their desire simply because they have a high population. Its just a question of how you decide to count up the situation. You can not deny that there was a massive gap in the county results. So look at it by the area of America and roughly 80% sided with trump. He had more of literally every possible measurement other than flat population count that was shifted by 1 state. Even in that one state the numbers break down to a not so pretty picture. https://www.wnd.com/files/2016/12/201...-trump-600.jpg
If you really want to take the position of 'flat population' you run into the issue of big citys having totally different interests than small towns. Its 2 very different cultures and thats a tough gap to bridge. The issue of being fair between them has been one drawing back to the civil war.

I'm sure you've heard the adage "actions speak louder than words". In this case, you take every opportunity to defend Trump, his actions, the means he got elected by, and dismiss the controversy surrounding him. When you constantly express support for what he's doing, I'm sure you can understand why your statements of "oh btw i dont actually like trump" don't seem very genuine.

Maybe I am blinded by my bias and too ignorant or stubborn to admit it. That is totally possible and Im not going to pretend that its not because holy shit am I glad Hillary did not get elected. But I really do believe the reason I keep ending up on this forum pushing against some of the 'anti trump' arguments is that I disagree with them. Like I stated earlier with the whole 'Obama doubled the national debt' argument- its just stupid. I should probably just learn to turn a blind eye or something but I constantly see people painting situations in whatever way justify s their bias (or more often agreeing and spreading others positions that do.)

I think a large part of why I disagree with some of the points here is that they lack any real foundation. Its "Hey- Trump is doing X thats fucked up" referencing some joke of a news outlet. If there was a solid basis for the claims it wouldn't be the case.

Imo Bernie Sanders should be president right now. But I am not going to go there..

[MattZed]

You said so yourself that its a billion dollars. That may be a drop in the bucket compared to the federal budget but that is big money that could go to help Americans. We have plenty of Americans homeless on the street. We have a huge issue finding good homes for orphans and our elderly could use more assistance in their healthcare now that the 'affordable healthcare act' somehow made good treatment less affordable. It may not be a 'nice' or a 'cool' position for me to take but they straight up do not rate our federal tax money. That is what charity is for. The governments appropriate way of 'assisting' them is to provide tax breaks as incentives for corporations and individuals the help that they need. I am not saying we should not help them as a nation- I am just saying I feel that demanding the citizens of a nation to pay you money so you can give it away to others is some robin hood bullshit and an inappropriate practice.

Listen, we could break down the cost: how much is spent per refugee, how much they pay in taxes, and how much they otherwise contribute to the economy. At the end of the day it's an utter pittance.

You've also completely missed the point that this is a national security issue. When we don't take in refugees, we look like weak assholes. You can't lead the free world from a position of weak assholery. If you want, you can slap the words "PR fund" all over our refugee budget and consider the refugee taxes and humanitarian benefits to be convenient side effects. Thinking that that one billion doesn't help Americans is myopic at best.

[oops_ur_dead]

My understanding was that its roots were from England where the poor locals could not afford to travel to vote so they would proxi their vote to whatever local noble who would make a vote that was suppose to be in their best interest.

Sure enough, I wasn't 100% sure on the history of it, just that it was antiquated.

Is that necessary? No. But the justification for keeping it has been that it limits 1 states ability to curve an election to their desire simply because they have a high population.

Are you joking? That is one of the biggest arguments against the electoral college, in that as the system works now, the power to decide elections lies in a handful of states. If about 2% of Trump voters in Florida and Pennsylvania - not even 0.5% percent of the population of the US - had voted for Clinton instead, then the election would have gone in Clinton's favor. I don't understand how you can argue that the electoral college limits one state's ability to curve an election when it's exactly the case now that a few states decide the election with the rest being "safe" votes for a certain party. Under the current system, voter power is concentrated in a few states, with other states having little actual influence on how the election will turn out.

Also, from an outsider's perspective the US emphasis on "state rights" or states being equal or whatever is really strange. Yes, without the electoral college California would probably have a larger sway in the election, but if so many people live in California why shouldn't the state have a larger say, if more people will be affected by the outcome? It makes no sense for me that in the name of "fairness", individual voters in states like Wyoming and North Dakota have a much larger say than individual voters in California, simply because they happen to live in a state with less people.

It's also strange, and perhaps a mindset caused by the electoral college, that states are seen as political monoliths, while the individual voters in the state are forgotten. I often see terms used like "states" decide elections, when really under a democracy, it should be the people deciding an election. California is a "Democratic" state, yes, but there are plenty of Republican voters there. However, as it stands the Republican voters in California have absolutely no say because California will never go Republican. It's completely unfair to Republican voters in CA that they have no influence at all on the outcome of the election because of where they live, and the same goes for Democratic voters in Texas. I just don't understand why people consider it fair to weigh the opinion of individuals differently, and often completely disregard them, because of the state they live in.

Its just a question of how you decide to count up the situation. You can not deny that there was a massive gap in the county results. So look at it by the area of America and roughly 80% sided with trump. He had more of literally every possible measurement other than flat population count that was shifted by 1 state. Even in that one state the numbers break down to a not so pretty picture. https://www.wnd.com/files/2016/12/201...-trump-600.jpg
If you really want to take the position of 'flat population' you run into the issue of big citys having totally different interests than small towns. Its 2 very different cultures and thats a tough gap to bridge. The issue of being fair between them has been one drawing back to the civil war.

I mean yeah, but that isn't a really interesting statement, all it shows is a difference in demographics for who voted for Trump and who voted for Hillary. But why are we looking at stupid shit like the area of the counties? Personally I don't think it's remarkable if Bumfuck, Nevada (Population: 10) which covers like half the state voted for Trump, while Las Vegas (Population: 600 000) voted for Clinton. All it means is that Trump voters happen to live in less dense areas, while Clinton voters are concentrated in cities. And yes, the cultures are very different and it's difficult to bridge the gap. But "fairness" isn't making it so that a majority of the population gets potentially fucked over to potentially help a minority of the population. That isn't the point of democracy.

Also, with regards to "He had more of literally every possible measurement other than flat population count that was shifted by 1 state", that isn't true either. Although those kinds of metrics are irrelevant when looking at who "should" have won, as I already mentioned, I'd say land is probably the least consequential of metrics that you could have chosen. 64% of American GDP comes from the counties that voted for Clinton, compared to 36% as produced by the countries that went for Trump. The counties and states that went for Clinton have higher numbers of college graduates, which fuel the economy and progress the nation as a worldwide leader of science and engineering. I'm not saying that any of these metrics really matter when it comes to the results of the election, but they certainly matter a hell of a lot more to the nation's future than "trump counties are biggurr"

[Helz]

Listen, we could break down the cost: how much is spent per refugee, how much they pay in taxes, and how much they otherwise contribute to the economy. At the end of the day it's an utter pittance.

You've also completely missed the point that this is a national security issue. When we don't take in refugees, we look like weak assholes. You can't lead the free world from a position of weak assholery. If you want, you can slap the words "PR fund" all over our refugee budget and consider the refugee taxes and humanitarian benefits to be convenient side effects. Thinking that that one billion doesn't help Americans is myopic at best.

We 'could' and I honestly started drawing up something on it but then I got lazy. If you really really want I will dig into that and draw some shit up for you.
I think its silly to say 'not taking refugees is a national security issue' though. Don't take this the wrong way but that really sounds like contrived reasoning.

Are you joking? That is one of the biggest arguments against the electoral college, in that as the system works now, the power to decide elections lies in a handful of states. If about 2% of Trump voters in Florida and Pennsylvania - not even 0.5% percent of the population of the US - had voted for Clinton instead, then the election would have gone in Clinton's favor. I don't understand how you can argue that the electoral college limits one state's ability to curve an election when it's exactly the case now that a few states decide the election with the rest being "safe" votes for a certain party. Under the current system, voter power is concentrated in a few states, with other states having little actual influence on how the election will turn out.

Also, from an outsider's perspective the US emphasis on "state rights" or states being equal or whatever is really strange. Yes, without the electoral college California would probably have a larger sway in the election, but if so many people live in California why shouldn't the state have a larger say, if more people will be affected by the outcome? It makes no sense for me that in the name of "fairness", individual voters in states like Wyoming and North Dakota have a much larger say than individual voters in California, simply because they happen to live in a state with less people.

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.) 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? 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.
Lets be real here. America has no idea how to loose anything with grace. Our citizens will find something to go ape shit about just because they did not get their way. If Hillary had won Bernie supporters would be raising hell about how he should actually be in that seat because her crooked ass did a lot of backroom handshaking to screw him out of having a chance. Its just an escalating pattern. Reminds me of the "Al Gore got screwed out of Flordia" conspiracy except every election it gets louder and more in everyones face.

It's also strange, and perhaps a mindset caused by the electoral college, that states are seen as political monoliths, while the individual voters in the state are forgotten. I often see terms used like "states" decide elections, when really under a democracy, it should be the people deciding an election. California is a "Democratic" state, yes, but there are plenty of Republican voters there. However, as it stands the Republican voters in California have absolutely no say because California will never go Republican. It's completely unfair to Republican voters in CA that they have no influence at all on the outcome of the election because of where they live, and the same goes for Democratic voters in Texas. I just don't understand why people consider it fair to weigh the opinion of individuals differently, and often completely disregard them, because of the state they live in.

Texas is shifting away from a solid republican state. Austin in particular is liberal as hell. Im not 100% but I believe every year Texas shifts a bit more in the direction of the left. I can't say much about California. Its strongly shifting more and more democratic than it already is.

I mean yeah, but that isn't a really interesting statement, all it shows is a difference in demographics for who voted for Trump and who voted for Hillary. But why are we looking at stupid shit like the area of the counties? Personally I don't think it's remarkable if Bumfuck, Nevada (Population: 10) which covers like half the state voted for Trump, while Las Vegas (Population: 600 000) voted for Clinton. All it means is that Trump voters happen to live in less dense areas, while Clinton voters are concentrated in cities. And yes, the cultures are very different and it's difficult to bridge the gap. But "fairness" isn't making it so that a majority of the population gets potentially fucked over to potentially help a minority of the population. That isn't the point of democracy.
Also, with regards to "He had more of literally every possible measurement other than flat population count that was shifted by 1 state", that isn't true either. Although those kinds of metrics are irrelevant when looking at who "should" have won, as I already mentioned, I'd say land is probably the least consequential of metrics that you could have chosen. 64% of American GDP comes from the counties that voted for Clinton, compared to 36% as produced by the countries that went for Trump. The counties and states that went for Clinton have higher numbers of college graduates, which fuel the economy and progress the nation as a worldwide leader of science and engineering. I'm not saying that any of these metrics really matter when it comes to the results of the election, but they certainly matter a hell of a lot more to the nation's future than "trump counties are biggurr"

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. 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.
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.'

[FYRE]

Umu.

[MattZed]

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.

Also, oops wasn't calling Trump voters dumb.