Please stop with the excess hatred and anger of Trump

Post Reply New Topic

List those 7 countries, are any of them safe to visit? Nigeria is a much larger country that is roughly 50/50 Muslim and Christian and they've also largely defeat Boko Haram. Why not more countries seems like an odd argument against.

I don't think Iran need be included but the others seem like common sense, Syria/Iraq/Somalia/Yemen/Sudan/Libya are all in the middle of civil wars. If it were an actual Muslim ban then there like 40 more countries to ban, it's not that and it shouldn't be that controversial to pause things for 90 days.

Depends what you are pausing. If it's the constitutional rights of people not to be discriminated against based on their religion, that could be bad.

Of course, I simply have a real problem when people start advocating using force over speech or advocacy, since it's such a slippery slope. You have to remember that for me it's a lot more real, I could easily open up my gun safe one night and start offing people who advocated things I disagreed with on social media, and I think that immediacy is kind of clarifying. I kind of think being immediately familiar with and prepared for violence has a way of making one much more wary of it, I have no illusions about what a fist, a knife, or a bullet does to flesh, so I reserve those things for the most truly grave of circumstances. I can recall several cases which were discussed on WP where someone was sucker punched and died from hitting the pavement badly, so I take even a thrown punch fairly seriously.



Assuming it's some weird situation where somehow the Oregonian madman has seized control of the government and brainwashed his troops into carrying out his orders, yeah, light him up, but that's a pretty rare set of circumstances.



I'm mostly trying to get people to see that there are people out there who'd cheer if they were the ones getting punched, and so maybe normalizing punching people we disagree with isn't the best idea, as satisfying as this particular instance may have been to see. From my perspective, there's also the whole 'people advocating violence who are poorly equipped for violence' irony as well, but that's a side issue.

Non-citizens that are not on US soil are not entitled to our constitutionally protected rights. This is very legal and something that has a long history in the US. 90 days isn't a ban, it's until a new vetting process is put in place.

Presumably the governor has made sure he has the support of the state senate and has flooded the judiciary with supporters. He's a Nazi, but he's not an idiot.

@Dox good post, thanks.


There are certainly parts of Libya and Somalia I'd be happy to visit, and even Eastern Iraq and Kurdistan. I don't really know enough about Yemen and Sudan, although I'm fairly sure South Sudan is the worse of the two right now.

Nigeria's Christian majority is irrelevant if the aim is to stop ISIS affiliates. There are fifteen thousand violent Islamists there. Of all the countries in the world, it is fourth for terrorist attacks/deaths/injuries. I think I'm right in saying it has roughly as many terrorist attacks every year as the 200-odd countries which are below it in the rankings (so disregarding Afghanistan, Syria, and Iraq). So in terms of achieving Trump's aims, I don't think this is a good policy; better to allow Yemen and Libya but clamp down on Afghanistan and Nigeria. Seems this is more about virtue signalling than doing anything substantial to stop terrorism in America. If ISIS have any brains they'll be activating sleeper cells in Nigeria and Eritrea, as well as the Americans who support them.

So yeah it's controversial when the President does things a) without thinking them through properly, b) without any suggestion that they'll do any good.

Personally I just don't like the idea of discriminating based on nationality full stop, certainly not in the form of a total ban (I can tolerate streamed visa restrictions because they are practical if nothing else). And banning all refugees is completely inhumane and should be a non-starter in a civilised society. Thank god for Angela Merkel.

No country in the world discriminates on the basis of religion when deciding whether to allow entry. Trump only has himself to blame for the perception that he wanted America to become the first country to do so: after all, he announced that it was what he wanted to do.

It's okay to punch Nazis
Everyone who disagrees with X is a Nazi
It's okay to punch anyone who disagrees with X.
We're adding support of Y and rejection of Z to the list.

And so on.

Vox: In a reversal, the Trump administration now says green card holders can enter the US It took two full days to clear this up.

Boko Haram is not what it was a few years ago, they've been militarily defeated from where they were a few years ago when they were threatening to overrun the north of the country and the practicality of banning a much larger diverse country like Nigeria would cause a lot of more issues. You seem to think the ban doesn't go far enough, I'm not sure how that is a good argument against. It's not a Muslim ban, personally I would have zero issue banning immigration from countries like Saudi Arabia which produce this extremist ideology. Also no, you are wrong that there are no other country that discriminates on the basis of religion when deciding whether to allow entry, the only one of those countries that Jews are allowed in is I think Somalia. and even if got in as a Jew you might not get back out. None of these countries are safe to visit, Kurdisan is not safe right now and eastern Iraq definitely isn't. Libya is in a state of anarchy and completely unsafe and Sudan is still committing genocide in Darfur and else where while it is true that there is simultaneously a civil war going on in South Sudan.

Thank god for Angela Merkel? She's destroyed Europe's security, destroyed the European Union, and subjugated the debtor nations in its bloc. She's indefensible, the plight of refugees might tickle your feels but my QoL is more important and perhaps you privilege shields you from that. Germany letting in a million refugees is nothing short of suicidal.

As teething problems go, that one's a doozy.

Glad to see they've sorted it out though. Pressure was applied and they got a result. Isn't that how it should function?

Two days is pretty efficient by government standards, too.



It certainly registers as self-harm. Don't underestimate the role German guilt (or Vergangenheitsbewältigung) played in the debacle. I think Merkel was massively over-correcting for noble reasons - so there is, at least, that much of a defence.

I agree that it's getting to be a bit much. I imagine that some people here have called me a Nazi as well. That's not going to stop me from posting my positive opinions about him. I've been called worse things than a Nazi.

It seems to me that these days, anybody who comes out as a Trump supporter, or who does not agree with the "Progressive" worldview, is labeled a Nazi and thus stigmatized as a target for people to attack, be it verbally or physically.

Ever hear of Saul Alinsky and his book "Rules for Radicals"? It's a book used by the left (Hillary Clinton wrote a paper on it), and in it is explained how to demonize your opponents by calling them names, marginalizing them, then going on to attack them. Nasty stuff.

I remember not too long ago when it used to be "Democrats" vs "Republicans" or
"Conservatives" vs "Liberals."
And Inauguration Day could proceed peacefully, without rioting in the streets of Washington, DC.

Now it seems the label goal posts have moved to the extremes of
"Islamist" vs "Nazi"
(or perhaps Islamist sympathizer vs. Nazi sympathizer)
to determine left wing vs. right wing.

What a shame.
Especially to me ... I believe in seeing people as unique individuals
worthy of respect.

Political name-calling (labeling others this way) is meant to bully, intimidate and shut down the opposition.

The political scene is sure polarized these days.

Well it stinks that people have called anyone a Nazi without cause. If someone says something which sounds fascistic, then the thing to do is point out how what they said sounds fascistic. Or that it sounds absurd, or whatever.

So far, I've been affiliated with a group that wants death camps for thought crimes, accused of any number of vile intentions up to and including arguing in bad faith, and have had my mind falsely read more times than I can count.

That's not even the real problem, though. All that clutter makes it difficult to find a real discussion. If people get used to that as normal, then it's really easy to avoid tough questions by focusing on imagined insults. Sure, it's gratifying when I pose a question that is too tough to answer, but I still prefer an answer.

I think people have a great ability to detect when people view their adversaries as humans with fairly standard motivations, and when they see their adversaries as monsters. The second type just seems further removed from reality the more you read their posts, no matter how skilfully they try to elicit sympathy for their well-ruminated grievances.

So it seems to me as well. I was pretty oblivious to such things up to less than a year ago. But the more overall I hear and read overall, it seems a clear agenda of control over society by those who liberally make accusations of fascism. Hopefully what's taking place lately is a sign of their eventual downfall, which they seem to be going at great lengths lately to expedite.

What are you talking about!? Because peoples are defending their rights against someone who act and talk like a fascist don't mean they have a agenda to control society.

Defending their rights?

That's going to take some 'splainin'.

Given the source(s), it doesn't bother me when they label me a Nazi. In fact from those types I take it as a complement to be cherished. Just the other day in one of these threads feral botanist tried to shame me (lol imagine that ) for taking this casual attitude.
Guess what; it didnt work.