Who will Trump declare war on first?

[Kidlicious]

Middle Eastern Christians are not terrorists. Why do I even have to explain to you why there is an exemption for Christians?

[Proteus_MST]

Middle Eastern Christians are not terrorists. Why do I even have to explain to you why there is an exemption for Christians?

More than 99% of the middle eastern muslims also are not terorists ... so why ban the 99% of the muslims who are no danger to US citizens.
Also not a single US citizens has been killed as a result of acts of terrorism by any inhabitant of the 7 countries on Trumps ban list ... obviously even those less than 1% of muslims who might be terrorists who may come to the USA seem to be no danger for US citizens.

Also:
There is a danger that some of the Christians might be members of the right wing.
Considering that since 2001 more US citizens have been killed by right wing extremism than by islamist terrorism, it would be a good reason to ban christians from travelling into the USA as well

[Kidlicious]

More than 99% of the middle eastern muslims also are not terorists ... so why ban the 99% of the muslims who are no danger to US citizens.
Also not a single US citizens has been killed as a result of acts of terrorism by any inhabitant of the 7 countries on Trumps ban list ... obviously even those less than 1% of muslims who might be terrorists who may come to the USA seem to be no danger for US citizens.

Also:
There is a danger that some of the Christians might be members of the right wing.
Considering that since 2001 more US citizens have been killed by right wing extremism than by islamist terrorism, it would be a good reason to ban christians from travelling into the USA as well

Horse****. ME Christians are not going to commit terrorist acts in the US. They don't even do that in the ME. The bulk**** is getting deep now. Let me put my boots on.

There has already been over 1000 Muslim immigrants from the selected countries since the ban was ruled unlawful. If one percent of those are terrorists that's 10 terrorists. How is this difficult for you?

[loinburger]

So you admit that it's a Muslim ban in that it ONLY targets Muslims. And that's (partially) why the judiciary struck it down - take away the religious discrimination and maybe our country would be "safer."

[Proteus_MST]

Horse****. ME Christians are not going to commit terrorist acts in the US. They don't even do that in the ME. The bulk**** is getting deep now. Let me put my boots on.

There has already been over 1000 Muslim immigrants from the selected countries since the ban was ruled unlawful. If one percent of those are terrorists that's 10 terrorists. How is this difficult for you?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ...rorism#Lebanon

The atrocitiees at the refugee camps at Sabra and Shatila in Lebanon were commited by christian militias.
So, if given the chance, middle eastern christians obviously are as capable of doing acts of terrorism, as adherents to other religions in the middle east.

Regarding he 1% ... I mentioned, on purpose that it is less than 1 %

From the source I used:

...
“Attacks by Muslims accounted for only one third of one percent of all murders in America last year.” ...

...
“The 54 fatalities caused by Muslim-American extremists in 2016 brought the total since 9/11 to 123,” Kurzman writes. “More than 240,000 Americans were murdered over the same period.”
...

...
“Since 9/11, only 23 percent of Muslim-Americans involved with violent extremist plots had family backgrounds in these seven countries,” Kurzman writes. “There have been no fatalities in the United States caused by extremists with family backgrounds in these countries.”...

...
The study found that only 46 Muslim Americans (defined as “Muslims who lived in the US for an extended period”) were linked to violent extremism at home or abroad in 2016. The total Muslim American population is 3.3 million.
...

...
Immigrants of all kinds were actually underrepresented in the ranks of Muslims attracted to extremism.
...
The only overrepresented group, you’ll note, are converts — people from non-Muslim backgrounds. Many of these people are likely attracted to extremism rather than Islam per se, as you can see by looking at the rates of violent extremism among non-Muslim groups....

So, wow ... 123 fatalitis due to islamist terrorism, while in the same timeframe 240k american have been murdered not due to acts of islamist terrorism.
You are 2000 times more in danger of dying by a non muslim murderer than you are likely to die of a muslim terrorist.

46 of 3.3 Million muslims in the USA are linked to extremism, that is 0.015 %
And if we take the informations as an addition that only 23% of muslims involved in trrorist plots have a family in/from one of the 7 countries that are banned by Trump, that means only 0.0038 % of people from those countries may actually be dangerous.

With other words, statistically you will need much more than 1000 muslims from those 7 countries, to find even a single terrorist among them

And that doesn't even take into account the fact that it is more muslim converts (i.e. those not born as muslims) than born muslims who commit acts of terrorism

[Kidlicious]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ...rorism#Lebanon

The atrocitiees at the refugee camps at Sabra and Shatila in Lebanon were commited by christian militias.
So, if given the chance, middle eastern christians obviously are as capable of doing acts of terrorism, as adherents to other religions in the middle east.

Regarding he 1% ... I mentioned, on purpose that it is less than 1 %

From the source I used:











So, wow ... 123 fatalitis due to islamist terrorism, while in the same timeframe 240k american have been murdered not due to acts of islamist terrorism.
You are 2000 times more in danger of dying by a non muslim murderer than you are likely to die of a muslim terrorist.

46 of 3.3 Million muslims in the USA are linked to extremism, that is 0.015 %
And if we take the informations as an addition that only 23% of muslims involved in trrorist plots have a family in/from one of the 7 countries that are banned by Trump, that means only 0.0038 % of people from those countries may actually be dangerous.

With other words, statistically you will need much more than 1000 muslims from those 7 countries, to find even a single terrorist among them

And that doesn't even take into account the fact that it is more muslim converts (i.e. those not born as muslims) than born muslims who commit acts of terrorism

You keep trying to make this irrelevant point. There is no question of whether or not to ban US citizens from the US, even if they have committed murder. This is about banning non US citizens from the US. Stop trying to compare the two.

Just off the record, if we we're to ban people from the US who we're statistically likely to commit murder it would make neonazis very happy.

[Proteus_MST]

You keep trying to make this irrelevant point. There is no question of whether or not to ban US citizens from the US, even if they have committed murder. This is about banning non US citizens from the US. Stop trying to compare the two.

More than 50% of all muslims in the USA are immigrants, so the comparison is valid.
Also you totally overlook the fact that not a single US citizen on US soil has died by a terrorist attack of someone who has any family ties to one of the 7 countries in Trumps ban list.
So much for the danger posed by them (and so much for the fact that Trump inflates the danger posed by them, for obviously intentionally for populist reasons)

Just off the record, if we we're to ban people from the US who we're statistically likely to commit murder it would make neonazis very happy.

Oh that would actually easy ... ban all gun owners.
AFAIK the demographic group of people that is statistically most involved in homicides are people who (legally) own a firearm.

Ban them all and the USA will become a much safer place

It will do much more to increase the safety of US citizens, than a travel ban of muslims (who have been to one of he 7 countries) into the USA

[Kidlicious]

More than 50% of all muslims in the USA are immigrants, so the comparison is valid.

why?

Also you totally overlook the fact that not a single US citizen on US soil has died by a terrorist attack of someone who has any family ties to one of the 7 countries in Trumps ban list.
,

That doesn't matter. What country they are from isn't as important as their beliefs. Do they hate the United States, the Constitution, Christians etc... You have many refugees in Germany who hate your system of govt etc. That puts you at risk of terrorism.

So much for the danger posed by them (and so much for the fact that Trump inflates the danger posed by them, for obviously intentionally for populist reasons)

Why do you think people have a right to vote? Are you an elitist?

Oh that would actually easy ... ban all gun owners.
AFAIK the demographic group of people that is statistically most involved in homicides are people who (legally) own a firearm.

Ban them all and the USA will become a much safer place

It will do much more to increase the safety of US citizens, than a travel ban of muslims (who have been to one of he 7 countries) into the USA

In the US individuals have the right to own guns and those who do are non-violent people. Your opinion is very bigoted and wrong. Saying that gun owners should be banned is more horrible than what a Nazi would say.

[Proteus_MST]

why?

That doesn't matter. What country they are from isn't as important as their beliefs. Do they hate the United States, the Constitution, Christians etc... You have many refugees in Germany who hate your system of govt etc. That puts you at risk of terrorism.

And you obviously just plain state that every muslim (at least every muslim of the affected countries) hates christians and/or the constitution and/or the USA
(Or at least trump states this, considering the fact that his Travel ban affects in majority people who wouldn't harm anyone and who actually are glad to live/work/study/teach/have a family in the USA (or at least were glad to have it, before he USA became more unfree/hostile towards them, without them having done anything to deserve it)
Anyone wants fries with hisPrejudices?

Why do you think people have a right to vote? Are you an elitist?

The majority of people who voted in the US presidential election actually voted for Hillary Clinton.
It is just your crooked election system that disregarded the will of the majority of the US americans

Aside from this it is questionable whether a majority of Trump voteers actually voted Trump because of his promised muslim ban.
So, the Muslim ban most probably is only according to the wishes of a small minority of US americans

In the US individuals have the right to own guns and those who do are non-violent people. Your opinion is very bigoted and wrong. Saying that gun owners should be banned is more horrible than what a Nazi would say.

No they aren't .... there are surely 1 % or even more of them who are potentionally violent ... so similar to your justification (for the muslim ban) it is OK to ban them ... in order to get rid of those 1+ % of potentionall violent ones.

[Kidlicious]

And you obviously just plain state that every muslim (at least every muslim of the affected countries) hates christians and/or the constitution and/or the USA
(Or at least trump states this, considering the fact that his Travel ban affects in majority people who wouldn't harm anyone and who actually are glad to live/work/study/teach/have a family in the USA (or at least were glad to have it, before he USA became more unfree/hostile towards them, without them having done anything to deserve it)
Anyone wants fries with hisPrejudices?

I only said that many of them hate the US, and in fact many are brainwashed to believe these things in the country where they are from. Your accusations against me are ridiculous. If I am prejudice against them it really doesn't matter because they aren't citizens of this country so I'm not harming them. Plus I have no problem with them coming here so long as they don't wish to overthrow democratic traditional American government.

The majority of people who voted in the US presidential election actually voted for Hillary Clinton.
It is just your crooked election system that disregarded the will of the majority of the US americans

It's not crooked. It's designed to give small states more power so that they are not dominated. EU has a similar system.

55% of Americans have no problem with this ban.

No they aren't .... there are surely 1 % or even more of them who are potentionally violent ... so similar to your justification (for the muslim ban) it is OK to ban them ... in order to get rid of those 1+ % of potentionall violent ones.

No. They are citizens and can't be banned. Also their rights can not be taken away. Not should they have their rights taken away. They pay taxes and they defend this country when asked to.

[Proteus_MST]

I only said that many of them hate the US, and in fact many are brainwashed to believe these things in the country where they are from. Your accusations against me are ridiculous. If I am prejudice against them it really doesn't matter because they aren't citizens of this country so I'm not harming them. Plus I have no problem with them coming here so long as they don't wish to overthrow democratic traditional American government.

Well, Trump obviously has a problem with them, no matter whether they want to overthrown the american government or are totally peaceful.
Else he wouldn't want to keep them all out of the USA

It's not crooked. It's designed to give small states more power so that they are not dominated. EU has a similar system.

The orignal system was designed in a way that the ordinary citizen wouldn't actually vote for the president (but rather that the electors would independently from their voters would decide for a presidential cadidate, according to their own conscience).
This original system (which actually made sense, but only was active for 4 periods) has since then been corrupted and actually gave way to the system you have nowadays, where 2 candidates engage in a populist battle of mudslinging ... and it usually isn't the candidate wth the better arguments who wins, but rather the candidate who is better at promising the people the blue out of the sky (or better at damaging his opponents reputation)

55% of Americans have no problem with this ban.

Depends on the poll ...
a CNN poll says the contrary, i.e. that the majority opposes the travel ban:
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/02/03/po...oll/index.html

But I have to admit that those 2 polls are rather close to each other and so, it seems like 50% of the americans actually aren't opposed to the ban
(but of course, if one splits them by party affiliation it becomes clear that the majority of democrats oppose the ban and the majority of republicans supports the ban ... which is no surprise)

No. They are citizens and can't be banned. Also their rights can not be taken away. Not should they have their rights taken away. They pay taxes and they defend this country when asked to.

Well, you could put them in prison, just in case.
Of the ~250 million citizens of the USA there are ~55 million gun owners.
Even if "just" 1% of them are potentionally violent that would be 550k armed americans who endanger the 195 million peaceful unarmed americans.

Big risk to let them run freely

Perhaps just take the middle of the USA, build a huge wall around it ... and then put all gun owners in it.
And let them pay for the wall

[Kidlicious]

Well, Trump obviously has a problem with them, no matter whether they want to overthrown the american government or are totally peaceful.
Else he wouldn't want to keep them all out of the USA

That is a lie and a false accusation. He has only ever proposed a temporary ban to protect the country. He has never proposed keeping Muslims out to make America Muslim free. That is a vicious lie. Please stop lying.

The orignal system was designed in a way that the ordinary citizen wouldn't actually vote for the president (but rather that the electors would independently from their voters would decide for a presidential cadidate, according to their own conscience).
This original system (which actually made sense, but only was active for 4 periods) has since then been corrupted and actually gave way to the system you have nowadays, where 2 candidates engage in a populist battle of mudslinging ... and it usually isn't the candidate wth the better arguments who wins, but rather the candidate who is better at promising the people the blue out of the sky (or better at damaging his opponents reputation)

IDK what you are talking about. Clinton lost because there is only a very small geographical area where she was popular. Over 90% of the geographical area of the United States favors Trump.

Depends on the poll ...
a CNN poll says the contrary, i.e. that the majority opposes the travel ban:
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/02/03/po...oll/index.html

But I have to admit that those 2 polls are rather close to each other and so, it seems like 50% of the americans actually aren't opposed to the ban
(but of course, if one splits them by party affiliation it becomes clear that the majority of democrats oppose the ban and the majority of republicans supports the ban ... which is no surprise)

Throw out the CNN poll. Anyone who calls this a Muslim ban is liar. Don't even watch CNN. They are absolutely horrible.

Well, you could put them in prison, just in case.
Of the ~250 million citizens of the USA there are ~55 million gun owners.
Even if "just" 1% of them are potentionally violent that would be 550k armed americans who endanger the 195 million peaceful unarmed americans.

Big risk to let them run freely

Perhaps just take the middle of the USA, build a huge wall around it ... and then put all gun owners in it.
And let them pay for the wall

I have some bad news for you. Don't know what you'be heard, but we enjoy having the right to own guns and defend ourselves. Why would we do anything to ourselves. Especially since it's a small percentage of gun owners who use guns illegally.

This is what you don't get, we have s right to defend ourselves. You are not going to take that right away. We are a very peaceful people, but when you push us too far you aren't going to like the results.

[giblets]

We are banning people because we suspect they are terrorists... and we suspect they are terrorists because they are muslims.... therefore we are banning people because they are muslims. The transitive property is a fundamental principle of logic.

[Proteus_MST]

That is a lie and a false accusation. He has only ever proposed a temporary ban to protect the country. He has never proposed keeping Muslims out to make America Muslim free. That is a vicious lie. Please stop lying.

The travel ban should have lasted for several months (IIRC 4 months).
4 Months can make the difference between being able to attend during a university Semester (and being able to get the credits (or attend the exams) for this semester or not.
4 months can also make a difference between keping a job or getting fired.
A large percentage of those who would have been affected worked and/or studied in the USA.
Also a lot of the people who would have been afffected have a family in the USA
Very Unfair!

IDK what you are talking about. Clinton lost because there is only a very small geographical area where she was popular. Over 90% of the geographical area of the United States favors Trump.

The geographical area doesn't vote, the citizen living in it vote.
And it is an injustice that someones vote (who is living in one of the less populated states, for example Wyoming) has almost 4 times the voting power than someones vote who is living in a more populated state (for example california). Because that's how it is now.
A joke!

Throw out the CNN poll. Anyone who calls this a Muslim ban is liar. Don't even watch CNN. They are absolutely horrible.

So sad!

I have some bad news for you. Don't know what you'be heard, but we enjoy having the right to own guns and defend ourselves. Why would we do anything to ourselves. Especially since it's a small percentage of gun owners who use guns illegally.

This is what you don't get, we have s right to defend ourselves. You are not going to take that right away. We are a very peaceful people, but when you push us too far you aren't going to like the results.

You are so peaceful people, that your homicide rate usually is between 4 and 6 per 100k inhabitants per year.
Compared to european countries with below 2 homicides / 100k / year (exception Liechtenstein with 2.7)
(Germany, as one of the countries with the strictest gun laws even just has 0.9, despite all those muslims )

Your countries opinion seems to be at slightly over 50% supportive of the 2nd amendment, but that doesn't mean that the 2nd amendment is good for you (and especially it doesn't mean that the 2nd amendment is good for he majority of americans ... those who don't own any firearms).
Terrible!

[Kidlicious]

Again, the ban is a temporary ban to create the vetting process desired by the president. You're ignoring the fact that they are making a genuine effort to allow refugees to immigrate who do not hate America and what it stands for. Because those people are dangerous. So if you define Islam as an America hating religion then you have a point giblets. But I don't think most people are willing to allow members of an America hating religion into the US.