US Politics Thread 2016-2020

[MaDef]

2 things to keep in mind, first "if" the ninth circuit court upholds the stay on the ban, it goes to the supreme court, if that happens just remember, the 9th circuit decisions are reversed by the Supreme Court about 75% of the time. The other thing is that the Supreme Court tends to side with the Government when it comes to national security questions.

[eddie]

Wow, we let in 12,587 people from Syria last year, and that was after a 2 year vetting process!

[Catfish]

If you look at WW2 and the decade before, it is astonishing how few refugees from Europe or anywhere were accepted and let in, by other nations.
Especially when you know that there was not even a passport or anything needed to enter another country, before WW1.

[ikalugin]

How many Syrian refugees should the U.S. take in? 50,000? 100,000? 500 000?

Clearly all of them, including all of the ISIS operatives.

Because clearly it is unethical to descriminate on the basis of the person's citizenship and ban ISIS citizens from entering.

[Onkel Neal]

Agreed, and it wouldn't be fair to stop there. Open the border to all the Mexicans, make sure they have a chance to move to the US.

Originally Posted by Bilge_Rat

Yes, its a dog eat dog world out there, but the U.S. did not create it and the U.S. is not solely responsible to solve it.

Riiiight, because the situation in the middle east has absolutely nothing to do with the US foreign politics of the past 30 years...

[Catfish]

^ Hey stop your leftist views here
We all know that this Obama pussy was on an apologizing tour, and no one in the Middle East believed him, after the last 50 years of US policy. Or 70 years of England policy in Persia err Iran, for that oil err matter.
So just to prove the US are a reliable political factor, let's all go on like in the 1960ies and bomb the hell out of 'em.

Weapons of mass desinformation anyone?

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by Catfish

Would not be a discriminatory decree be unconstitutional? Executive abuse is not just about "leftists" reactions. The court will come to a decision this week. A lot of innocent people caught in this mess.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38902650

I'm sorry...everyone is caught in this mess. But according to the master mind of 9/11 the US deserved it. So those innocent like the rest of the innocent have to suck it up. Since 9/11 the entire innocent world has been affected. 9/11 did not selectively pick out just the US. Then entire world as brought into it.

[Mr Quatro]

Originally Posted by MaDef

2 things to keep in mind, first "if" the ninth circuit court upholds the stay on the ban, it goes to the supreme court, if that happens just remember, the 9th circuit decisions are reversed by the Supreme Court about 75% of the time. The other thing is that the Supreme Court tends to side with the Government when it comes to national security questions.

Your smarter than you look MaDef (your 'avatar' that is)

[Rockin Robbins]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Discriminating - from Latin: discrimino.

1. to seclude, to separate, to select, to sort out;
2. to brighten up;
3. to distinguish, to differentiate.

All law discriminates. Laws against murder discriminate against murderers. Those on the left, who think all murderers are Muslim, will go after laws against murder as discriminatory. Evidence: one specific Muslim who was conviced of murder. Therefore laws against murder discriminate against Muslims.

As silly as that example is, Trump's temporary moratorium is against countries found by the Obama Administration to be state sponsors of terrorism. They have announced, and they have succeeded in Europe, that they will infiltrate the refugee population with killers. They happen to be predominately Muslim, but that is not the reason for the action. We need to filter out the killers. Not having any reasonable method of doing that, a 90 day moratorium while such a method is developed is reasonable, prudent and in the spirit of the very first obligation of any government: to protect the lives and property of its citizens. There's no legitimate question here.

[Rockin Robbins]

Originally Posted by Catfish

Would not be a discriminatory decree be unconstitutional? Executive abuse is not just about "leftists" reactions. The court will come to a decision this week. A lot of innocent people caught in this mess.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38902650

A lot of innocent people suffer in war. We are at war. We can choose to defend ourselves, with known unfortunate consequences, or we can choose to die. I choose to accept the unfortunate consequences of defending our country.

Again: a liberal is a person too enlightened to take his own side in a disagreement. Fortunately, liberals have sensible people to protect them, who are prepared to accept that some innocent people will die as a result.

We do not have the choice of whether innocent people will die. Our only choice is whether those innocent people will belong to us or the rogue nations who are at war with us. We have decided that THEIR innocent civilians will die. We accept that responsibility.

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by Dowly

I do believe the bolded bit was something he said during his campaign? Not 100% sure.

Yes it was. However, the executive order was not worded as such.

[Catfish]

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

I'm sorry...everyone is caught in this mess. But according to the master mind of 9/11 the US deserved it. So those innocent like the rest of the innocent have to suck it up. Since 9/11 the entire innocent world has been affected. 9/11 did not selectively pick out just the US. Then entire world as brought into it.

Yes, of course I understand that. But the masterminds and their stooges are not the majority. We treat all of them as if they were terrorists, and this fuels the idiots, because they can say "Look, for them you are all terrorists."
We in Germany are also caught in this mess of course. I would not have voted for Merkel, but despite all fails and problems, imho Germany has acted right, not only because of its past.
We will have a much more difficult situation dealing with Turkey's Erdoghan, and Syriah's Assad.


Edit sorry, just read what you posted afterwards, along with R.'n Robbins.. hmm.. I guess i even agree, at least for the time being.

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by Nippelspanner

Riiiight, because the situation in the middle east has absolutely nothing to do with the US foreign politics of the past 30 years...

Well it does. But, as the entire world enjoys the spoils(USAID, military support and the like) of the US it too can enjoy the pains that are come with it.

Have good day.

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by Catfish

Yes, of course I understand that. But the masterminds and their stooges are not the majority. We treat all of them as if they were terrorists, and this fuels the idiots, because they can say "Look, for them you are all terrorists."
We in Germany are also caught in this mess of course. I would not have voted for Merkel, but despite all fails and problems, imho Germany has acted right, not only because of its past.
We will have a much more difficult situation dealing with Turkey's Erdoghan, and Syriah's Assad.

Majority or not does not matter. The fact remains all are affected in one form or another.

Everyone is treated as a suspect. Even my 70 year old father who was detained at the airport for having 2 Bic lighters in his pock. My old man is not a terrorist.