Trump’s ‘Travel Ban’ Countries Account For Only 8% of World’s Muslims

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

3 minutes ago, jg121783 said:

Calling a travel ban that affects only 8% of muslims a muslim ban is about the same as calling restrictions on tourist visas that might affect a small group of catholics a catholic ban. I don't see any false equivalencies there. Both are ridiculous charicterizations of what they are attempting to describe.

I know right even a 

[Steeleballz 7,550]

3 minutes ago, jg121783 said:

Calling a travel ban that affects only 8% of muslims a muslim ban is about the same as calling restrictions on tourist visas that might affect a small group of catholics a catholic ban. I don't see any false equivalencies there. Both are ridiculous charicterizations of what they are attempting to describe.

 

  The "travel ban" does target specific countries. The PI is not one of them. I assume you understand what a false equivalence is, since I've seen you use that term a lot.

[Rob and Cheryl 56]

2 hours ago, Satisfied said:

Alleged doesn't mean anything about criminality.

 

The list of countries to limit was put in place under Obama or prior.  It's not like the Trump admin came up with it on their own.  So Trump didn't ban muslims.  He just enforced a law or rule that was already in place.

He intends and intended to.  Intentions count in our leaders.

[Rob and Cheryl 56]

6 hours ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

My wifes family can not get a visa to come here and visit. Does he hate Catholics also 

Maybe, The man is full of hate. Is their situation covered by executive order?

[Randyandyuni 2,682]

5 hours ago, Rob and Cheryl said:

So I am glad we get to the truth. You feel that Muslims need to be contained and are dangerous. The travel restrictions on Muslims are good in your view.

 

I disagree for several reasons, but it us good to get to the bottom of this issue.

 

 

I find it amusing you make assumptions and character judgements when you are responding to people but are angered to the point of chastising people that do the same to you. 

 

Sometimes i appreciate your commentary and banter, lately its more erratic and unaccepting

[cyclone27 710]

Great list and should be expanded with a few other countries IMHO. 

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

6 hours ago, Rob and Cheryl said:

So I am glad we get to the truth. You feel that Muslims need to be contained and are dangerous. The travel restrictions on Muslims are good in your view.

 

I disagree for several reasons, but it us good to get to the bottom of this issue.

 

 

Yeah, you have me all figured out.  A person who is intolerant of other races/religions.

 

Humans are dangerous.  All humans.  But some are driven by ideologies that most of us cannot fathom.  Those extremists tend to ruin it for the more normal folks of any collective group.

 

Not sure if you have ever started into the eyes of a terrorist who wants to kill you just because you exist.  I have.  They exist, and they are animals.  And yes, they try to come here with malice aforethought to destroy our way of life.  But that is not all muslims, by any stretch of the imagination.

[Rob and Cheryl 56]

1 hour ago, Randyandyuni said:

I find it amusing you make assumptions and character judgements when you are responding to people but are angered to the point of chastising people that do the same to you. 

 

Sometimes i appreciate your commentary and banter, lately its more erratic and unaccepting

What character judgement did I make?

[Unidentified 2,930]

15 minutes ago, Satisfied said:

Yeah, you have me all figured out.  A person who is intolerant of other races/religions.

 

Humans are dangerous.  All humans.  But some are driven by ideologies that most of us cannot fathom.  Those extremists tend to ruin it for the more normal folks of any collective group.

 

Not sure if you have ever started into the eyes of a terrorist who wants to kill you just because you exist.  I have.  They exist, and they are animals.  And yes, they try to come here with malice aforethought to destroy our way of life.  But that is not all muslims, by any stretch of the imagination.

2

So because some extremist Muslims want to kill us we should ban all the non extremist Muslimsuslims? Then we should definetely ban Christians too. 

 

I am all for the ban, because it is not banning muslims. I am not for letting fear controll what we do or do not do. 

Edited July 12, 2018 by Unidentified

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

48 minutes ago, Unidentified said:

Don't know if you're being sarcastic but if you're not I think you need to read up on Islam. Plus haven't Christians been killing a bunch of people they don't agree with? Should we ban them too? How about we ban all religions?

I've read up on islam.  I've read parts of the koran. I've also lived in countries where the predominantly religion is islam.  

 

No we shouldn't ban all religions.  Or any religion.  We should ban terrorists, and apply extreme scrutiny to people who come from countries where extremism/terrorism is the norm.

 

I am no longer a very religious person.  I respect anyone's right to believe however they want.  But to me, religion is just a means of controlling people.  The fear of burning in hell... what a great way to get kids to behave.  Or for a religious leader to control his "flock".

 

As to what I said above, I have also lived next door to muslims who were awesome people.  My kids played with theirs.  Would probably have given the clothes off their backs if needed.  The choice to practice any religion does not in and of itself cause a person to be good or bad.  That is an internal choice.  Unfortunately, many extremists use religion as a shield to hide their wicked ways.  Those people would be wicked regardless of their chosen religion. 

 

And yes, chrisrians were pretty brutal back in the day.  Then again, they were persecuted and thrown in with lions at one point.  Might have made you and I push back too, eh?

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

5 minutes ago, Unidentified said:

So because some extremist Muslims want to kill us we should ban all the non extremist Muslimsuslims? Then we should definetely ban Christians too. 

 

I am all for the ban, because it is not banning muslims. I am not for letting fear controll what we do or do not do. 

I agree 110%. There is no need to fear a person based on their religion.  And the ban isn't against muslims (though many on the left would have you believe it to be true). It is on countries on a list with known terrorist problems (that Trump had zero say in creating).  You seem to get that.   

 

If I were king for a day, the list of countries would be larger than it is now.

[fascinating123 38]

I have yet to meet anyone from the impacted countries or people who have loved ones from them who was in favor of the ban. My wife has friends who would love to visit us on holiday, but because they hold a Yemeni passport, they are prevented from doing so. Banning specific dangerous individuals is fine, but a blanket ban is not the answer.

[Unidentified 2,930]

19 minutes ago, fascinating123 said:

I have yet to meet anyone from the impacted countries or people who have loved ones from them who was in favor of the ban. My wife has friends who would love to visit us on holiday, but because they hold a Yemeni passport, they are prevented from doing so. Banning specific dangerous individuals is fine, but a blanket ban is not the answer.

In a way I agree but it is hard. Bad people are everywhere. I think more extreme vetting for visa applications and more limitations on ESTA would be better, something stricter than the Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015. I know people hate giving up personal information but maybe it should be a requirement that the US gets to look through everything (social m.m and whatever else they can find on you online). It will mean longer processing times but then people at least have a chance to visit friends and family and hopefully keep bad people out. 

[fascinating123 38]

26 minutes ago, Unidentified said:

In a way I agree but it is hard. Bad people are everywhere. I think more extreme vetting for visa applications and more limitations on ESTA would be better, something stricter than the Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015. I know people hate giving up personal information but maybe it should be a requirement that the US gets to look through everything (social m.m and whatever else they can find on you online). It will mean longer processing times but then people at least have a chance to visit friends and family and hopefully keep bad people out. 

Well, I think there are ways to cut through the processing times it's just no one wants to bother because it cuts into the entrenched special interests of bureaucrats.

 

Anyway, having more scrutiny is an acceptable alternative to the ban for me. Not my ideal, but world's better than what we have.

Edited July 12, 2018 by fascinating123

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

1 hour ago, fascinating123 said:

I have yet to meet anyone from the impacted countries or people who have loved ones from them who was in favor of the ban. My wife has friends who would love to visit us on holiday, but because they hold a Yemeni passport, they are prevented from doing so. Banning specific dangerous individuals is fine, but a blanket ban is not the answer.

Truly sorry for how this negatively affects your family.  As is often the case, a few bad people ruin it for the masses of good folk who don’t deserve it.  It seems unfair I know, but think how hard it must be to weed out the bad/dangerous folk from all the good ones.  It’s a tough job, I am sure, and I am sure that unless the ban is 100%, even then some riffraff will get thru.  Consider how much simpler it is to be an illegal/criminal when crossing borders.  Put up a good front and cover story, arrive on foreign soil, then disappear, never to be seen again until they decide to cause mayhem.  But those who come here legally and with no harmful intent, they are the ones who really suffer due to the intense scrutiny required.  It sux.