Trump: Two Weeks In Summary

[mage21]

First, Malik came to America from Pakistan by way of Saudi Arabia, neither of which would have been affected by Trump's ban. Second, apparently she because self-radicalized after she got here, which means she did not hold anti-American views when she arrived. If you want a ban that prevents anyone from entering the country unless we can be sure there's no chance they'll attack the country in the future, then what you want is not only a 100% global ban, but you also need to empty the freaking country of all people.

And third, of course you can oppose terrorism without creating terrorists. You can't do this by instituting a de facto ban on a religion, which recruiters can point to and say 'Look at this! This guy hates Muslims! He's probably going to declare war on you! Join us and help us fight him!'

To be quite honest, without sounding like I'm moving off the debate point, it doesn't even matter if zero terrorists committed acts that would have been prevented by the travel ban. It makes it that much harder to accomplish, from seven countries that are listed as countries that foster terrorism. This makes "a bit of sense", as I put it in my original argument.

Considering that there are roughly 50 other countries that are predominately Muslim where travel is not restricted, it is not a Muslim ban. So if anyone is guilty of what you describe, inciting terrorist sympathy because, "Trump hates Muslims, look at the Muslim ban," it is people falsely claiming that there's a Muslim ban when there isn't.

[Allybeboba]

No it isn't. A child is held with or without his custodians for hours at a time in a windowless room beyond the reach of non-ticket holding attorneys. Splitting hairs over what constitutes a detainment because they aren't in shackles just shows how ambivalent you are for human rights, a common theme held by authoritarians-in-training.

He was in an airplane without his custodians beyond the reach of non-ticket holding attorneys reach for hours wasn't he?
The point being before is that tweet was sent out with a photo of a girl that was taken years ago. And people actually believed it was true.

[Breccia]

That he was. A first generation Muslim-American that pledged allegiance to ISIL. He cheered in support of the 911 attackers. None of this made the news however.

And still completely unaffected by Trump's ban, which was the context in question.

Are you honestly trying to make the argument "we should ban immigrants because their legal native-born American children might turn out to be criminals when they turn 30"? Because good luck with that one.

[Allybeboba]

Are you insane? Detaining a child is horrible. No parents, no one looking for the child's rights. There is nothing even remotely decent about detaining a child.

You just believe all of Trump's claims of fake news, eh? Chugging that kool-aid a little too fast, eh?

Was that photo true or was it proven to be false? Yes or no...

[Breccia]

Two weeks in and the trail of tears just keeps on coming.

Um...you do know the "Trail of Tears" was a real thing, and one of the biggest black marks on American history, right? Probably not what you should be using here.

[LaserSharkDFB]

To be quite honest, without sounding like I'm moving off the debate point, it doesn't even matter if zero terrorists committed acts that would have been prevented by the travel ban. It makes it that much harder to accomplish, from seven countries that are listed as countries that foster terrorism. This makes "a bit of sense", as I put it in my original argument.

Considering that there are roughly 50 other countries that are predominately Muslim where travel is not restricted, it is not a Muslim ban. So if anyone is guilty of what you describe, inciting terrorist sympathy because, "Trump hates Muslims, look at the Muslim ban," it is people falsely claiming that there's a Muslim ban when there isn't.

It actually does matter, in that the cost of such a ban is considerably higher than the benefit thereof. Restricting the rights of travelers, providing recruitment fodder to our enemies, and just the opportunity cost of spending money and manpower on things that don't actually help at all... all compared to the microscopic chance that maybe someday one of them might or might not do something bad. It makes no sense at all unless you're completely paranoid.

And it is a Muslim ban from those countries. If it bans all people from those countries but gives preferential treatment to other religions, it is a de facto Muslim ban. Trump wanted a Muslim ban, and that's what Gulianni gave him, in effect if not by actual declaration. But even if it weren't, it's been done in such a way that it really really looks like one, and that's all an ISIS recruiter would need.

[primalmatter]

So you're still holding your view that he accomplished everything you listed here?



Because it's already been pointed out to you that he didn't accomplish any of those things and TPP was more than likely not going through anyway. Even in your own fucking quote you said "working on tarrifs" if he's still working on it, how has he accomplished it?

When I said you backtracked, I meant you went from claiming he's accomplished many things to not being able to list any actual accomplishment.

But yes, let's delve into a semantics argument of whether I used the word "backtrack" correctly. Just like most of you Trump supporters end up doing.

I pointed out what he did and never moved from it... its you that has added lasting effects as a qualifier.

[Allybeboba]

And still completely unaffected by Trump's ban, which was the context in question.

Are you honestly trying to make the argument "we should ban immigrants because their legal native-born American children might turn out to be criminals when they turn 30"? Because good luck with that one.

Not trying to argue anything. It seems you are trying to argue against something though.
I merely agreed with you that he was American. And that for the better part of his life he "hated" American values. And that he pledged allegiance to a Islamic terrorist group. I also pointed out the mainstream media did not bring any of this to light. My guess is because that it does not fit within their narrative.
You are looking for an "arguement" where none exists my friend. Keep on looking. I am sure you will find one somewhere.

- - - Updated - - -

Um...you do know the "Trail of Tears" was a real thing, and one of the biggest black marks on American history, right? Probably not what you should be using here.

Oh lawd... the snowflakes might be melting.

My great-great grandmother was part of the Trail of Tears and even I am not offended. It was 170 years ago.

[mage21]

Your primary defense of your argument didn't fit the bill.

That is not "gotcha". It should not be a surprise to you that your evidence doesn't support your case. Choose evidence that supports your case, or abandon your case due to lack of evidence.

If you replace "Orlando shooting" with "terrorist attack", my argument doesn't change. If you intend to argue that restricting travel from seven countries identified as sources of terrorism will do nothing to stymie terrorism, I have to say that's hard to believe. I believe it makes some sense that it makes it more difficult for a possible terrorist to gain entry. It makes "a bit of sense", that's all I've ever argued.

To say that that argument is completely flawed because I said "Orlando shooting" instead of "terrorism" isn't a fair judgment in my mind.

[Wyrt]

If you replace "Orlando shooting" with "terrorist attack", my argument stands on its own merit. If you intend to argue that restricting travel from seven countries identified as sources of terrorism will do nothing to stymie terrorism, I have to say that's hard to believe. I believe it makes some sense that it makes it more difficult for a possible terrorist to gain entry. It makes "a bit of sense", that's all I've ever argued.

To say that that argument is completely flawed because I said "Orlando shooting" instead of "terrorism" isn't a fair judgment in my mind.

Which of those countries had people come to our country and commit terrorism again?

[LaserSharkDFB]

If you replace "Orlando shooting" with "terrorist attack", my argument doesn't change. If you intend to argue that restricting travel from seven countries identified as sources of terrorism will do nothing to stymie terrorism, I have to say that's hard to believe. I believe it makes some sense that it makes it more difficult for a possible terrorist to gain entry. It makes "a bit of sense", that's all I've ever argued.

To say that that argument is completely flawed because I said "Orlando shooting" instead of "terrorism" isn't a fair judgment in my mind.

You original argument was:

And then they're finding out that, for example, the travel ban actually makes a bit of sense until a vetting process can be implemented to help prevent the next Orlando Nightclub shooting, that it's not a catch-all "anti-immigrant" stance.

So, we replace 'Orlando Nightclub' with 'terrorist'. Fine. You're still in a situation where Trump's ban would not have prevented any previous terrorist attack, and there is no reason to believe that our current vetting process is so flawed that the ban would significantly reduce the chance of future terrorist attacks. The best way to stop terrorist attacks would be for us to stop fucking around in the Middle East, but that's not going to happen.

[mage21]

Which of those countries had people come to our country and commit terrorism again?

Tying the validity of the policy to the body count is flawed. What's wrong with preemptive measures? Doesn't that make a bit of sense? Are you saying that if there was a Pakistani terrorist who shot a lot of people in Baltimore suddenly the policy would make sense?

I don't know how I let myself get wrapped up in identifying which terrorists came from the restricted countries, because I don't think it changes the fact that restricting entry from seven countries identified as sources of terrorism makes some sense. As long as it is indeed temporary until a more extreme vetting process can be implemented.

[Wyrt]

Tying the validity of the policy to the body count is flawed. What's wrong with preemptive measures? Doesn't that make a bit of sense? Are you saying that if there was a Pakistani terrorist who shot a lot of people in Baltimore suddenly the policy would make sense?

I don't know how I let myself get wrapped up in identifying which terrorists came from the restricted countries, because I don't think it changes the fact that restricting entry from seven countries identified as sources of terrorism makes some sense. As long as it is indeed temporary until a more extreme vetting process can be implemented.

We have preemptive measures. There's 2 years of vetting before they're allowed to come here.

All this order does is give ISIS more recruiting power.

[Deleted]

Obama also won the popular vote in his initial election by several million, and maintained a decent approval rating through most of his presidency. Trump already lost the popular vote by 3 mil, and just barely won the presidency by a difference of less than 100,000 votes total across a few states. In addition his approval rating is tanking into the floor, even among Republicans. A couple of percent higher Democrat turnout and he's toast in 2020. Or if the Republicans who have become disillusioned with him choose to stay home, easy win.

hillary would have lossed the vote by a fair margin without california and especially if you also exclude new york, so it would have been better if so the entire country votes for trump but 1-2 states decide the entire election ?

[Deleted]

Trump and Staff Rethink Their Tactics After Early Stumbles

"Mr. Trump, who was not fully briefed on the executive order he signed giving his chief strategist a seat on the National Security Council, has demanded that he be looped in earlier."

lmao, AS IF. Bitch is half assing his job, bitch claims bitch wasn't fully briefed. According to ROGUE POTUS Staff, he doesn't read intel either, a.k.a. wasn't properly briefed.

[Wyrt]

hillary would have lossed the vote by a fair margin without california and especially if you also exclude new york, so it would have been better if so the entire country votes for trump but 1-2 states decide the entire election ?

Completely ignoring all the people in other states that didn't vote for Trump.

[Xeones]

hillary would have lossed the vote by a fair margin without california and especially if you also exclude new york, so it would have been better if so the entire country votes for trump but 1-2 states decide the entire election ?

What? The fuck are you talking about?

It's like you chose to ignore the votes of 48 other states for no reason? Why?

Also it's bizarre to do this given that the electoral college is set up in a way to make it so only a few "battleground" states decide the election every time.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Nobody noticed this woke beauty?



I mean, cmon, I spent half a hour on it!

I'll give it a thumbs up, good job!

- - - Updated - - -

hillary would have lossed the vote by a fair margin without california and especially if you also exclude new york, so it would have been better if so the entire country votes for trump but 1-2 states decide the entire election ?

This line is just getting lame. It also doesn't make anything I said any less true.

We're a constitutional Republic with representative democracy. Why should our president be decided by a tiny number of people spread out over giant swaths of nothingness? Yes, we get it, you don't care about what the majority wants in a democracy, you only care about getting what you want, the majority be damned.

[Zan15]

hillary would have lossed the vote by a fair margin without california and especially if you also exclude new york, so it would have been better if so the entire country votes for trump but 1-2 states decide the entire election ?

i always hate to lossed.

so if we get to discount "california" then can we exclude Texas too? How about the next biggest red state since you want to exclude New York?


so you are going to penalize 1-2 states because people decided to live close together? Because one political party wanted to be warm and flocked to California?



How about another way to count, by how much contribution to the country in economic terms...?

Counties that Clinton won nationwide combined to generate 64 percent of America's economic activity in 2015. The more-than-2,600 counties that Trump won combined to generate 36 percent of the country's economic activity.

[Mormolyce]

And no. I'm just not blinded by partisanship, mostly because I'm canadian and I can observe the extremists doing stupid things. BLM and Antifa are, in fact, the only groups to have done violence in the US and the alt-right is the only one who did so outside the US.

I know you're politically polarized, Mormolyce, but it's saddening thay you cannot call an extremist group for what it is. BLM and Antifa are both responsibles for massive violences, beatings and breaking of public property. The alt-right had one shooting in Canada, 30 minutes away from my home and like to intimidate people.

But that wouldn't be the first time you're blinded by your own convictions. Sadly, I cannot say the historic of our exchanges on this board are particularly positive. To some extent, it is therefore unsurprising that you cannot accept the reality that BLM, Antifa and Alt-Right are all three extremists groups.

https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-h...ernative-right

Alt right is a hate group.

https://www.splcenter.org/news/2016/...not-hate-group

BLM is not.

The SPLC has nothing on "antifa" because that isn't even a loose group, it's just a neologism.

These are facts. You are free to ignore them and substitute alternate facts, of course.

- - - Updated - - -

Nobody noticed this woke beauty?



I mean, cmon, I spent half a hour on it!

I don't get it, why did it take you half an hour to upload a regular picture of Trump?

- - - Updated - - -

providing recruitment fodder to our enemies

People are seriously missing this one.

President Donald Trump's travel ban on seven Muslim-majority nations will be used by ISIS as a recruitment tool, giving the militant group a major propaganda boost, former jihadists have told CNN.

The executive order, which blocks all immigrants and visa holders who are citizens of Iran, Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Libya, Yemen and Somalia, reinforces ISIS' narrative, according to former jihadi Abu Abdullah.
"It can play into their propaganda, to make it clear for anyone who could be in doubt, that it's a war on Islam and all Muslims," Abdullah told CNN over a messaging service. The names of the now-defected foreign fighters in this story have been changed to protect their identities.
Another former jihadi said the wedge being driven between Muslims living in the West and their governments is exactly what ISIS wants.
"[Trump's] helped ISIS a lot, he's basically being a tool for them in a way," Abu Obaida, a British former Jabhat al-Nusra fighter in Syria, told CNN via direct message. "On social media right now there's a lot of people quoting Anwar al-Awlaki (the late spokesperson for al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula) and his last speech when he said that America will turn on the Muslims."

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/01/30/po...s-recruitment/

And nobody should be surprised, ISIS outright celebrated when he won the election and said exactly that would happen:

"Rejoice with support from Allah, and find glad tidings in the imminent demise of America at the hands of Trump,” said the Islamic State-affiliated al-Minbar Jihadi Media network, one of several jihadi forums to post commentaries on the results of the U.S. election.

"Trump’s win of the American presidency will bring hostility of Muslims against America as a result of his reckless actions, which show the overt and hidden hatred against them,” continued the essay, provided by the SITE Intelligence group, a private organization that monitors jihadists’ web sites.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.2d7d8364e7cb

Sometimes I wonder if the far right is working with Islamic extremists, they seem to spend all their time eating each others' shit.

- - - Updated - - -

hillary would have lossed the vote by a fair margin without california and especially if you also exclude new york, so it would have been better if so the entire country votes for trump but 1-2 states decide the entire election ?

I love this one. She would've lost the popular vote if you exclude the largest state in the country!!! And the largest city!!!