Who will Trump declare war on first?

[giblets]

How did federally owned land vote in the election?

[Kidlicious]

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!

Not at all. They are not citizens. They have no rights.

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!

Yes the geographical area does vote. That's how our system works and it's fair. Small states do not want to be dominated by large states. That is unfair. It's not going to change. This is what holds the union together.

So sad!

Yes I know, but CNN is determined to continue being horrible so we just need to carry on.

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!

The other side of that is if someone comes into your house with a big knife to rape your wife and daughters you get to watch. I'll take my guns thank you.

[giblets]

Can't you just fight them with your own big knife?

[Proteus_MST]

Not at all. They are not citizens. They have no rights.

Thomas Jefferson disagrees with you.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness

But I am sure that Jefferson or one other of the early pesidents may not be some of the former presidents who will get often quoted by the Trump administration

Yes the geographical area does vote. That's how our system works and it's fair. Small states do not want to be dominated by large states. That is unfair. It's not going to change. This is what holds the union together.

I don't see a difference between, for example, a comuter programmer living in a major city on the coast and a computer programmer living in a major city in the middle of the country.
The differences between the states (regarding the living conditions of people living in the different US states) have diminished to a large degree since the early days of the states.
The differences between rural and urban areas within a state surely are larger that the differences between rural areas in state A and rural areas in state B or between urban areas in state A and urban areas in state B.
Theefore I actually see no reason to give someone living under certain living conditions in one state more voting power than someone who is living under similar living conditions in another state.

Also what holds the states together is the fact that they cannot just secede if they want ... which is why Caliiornia, despite Secession from the united states having a large percentage of people in favor there (since Trump) wouldn't be able to secede (even if they would successfully hold a Referendum within their state about it)

The other side of that is if someone comes into your house with a big knife to rape your wife and daughters you get to watch. I'll take my guns thank you.

Noone keeps me from learning martial arts in order to be able to defend myself.
Also noone would say a word if I would just grab a shovel or frying pan and smash it over the head of the intruder.
Likewise, in my own home I am allowed to use CS gas weapons or pepper spray without needing a license.
(only if I would want to carry those weapons outside I would need the small weapons liense, which is rather easy to obtain however, if I am no addict, have no criminal record, am 18+ and am mentally and physically fit to wield the weapons)

Now an example from the USA:
In the middle of the night you hear some noises in your home despite you should be alone.
You see some movement in the darkness of your home and fire your pistol into the darkness.
You hear a thump and see a body fall to the ground.
After you switch on the light you see that you just killed your son, who was supposed to not come home from his holidays before tomorrow (but came back earlier and wanted to surprise you)

Involuntary manslaughter scenarios similary to the one I just gave as an example are a big problem if a gun is at home

[giblets]

His son would never visit him, so that's not something he can relate to.

[Kidlicious]

Thomas Jefferson disagrees with you.

I'm sure Jefferson was no big fan of Sharia law. You go on and believe what you will. But the fact is that non-citizens have no legal rights. They are not subjects of the US govt. Therefore the US govt is not denying them their rights. They simply have none

I don't see a difference between, for example, a comuter programmer living in a major city on the coast and a computer programmer living in a major city in the middle of the country.
The differences between the states (regarding the living conditions of people living in the different US states) have diminished to a large degree since the early days of the states.
The differences between rural and urban areas within a state surely are larger that the differences between rural areas in state A and rural areas in state B or between urban areas in state A and urban areas in state B.
Theefore I actually see no reason to give someone living under certain living conditions in one state more voting power than someone who is living under similar living conditions in another state.

Also what holds the states together is the fact that they cannot just secede if they want ... which is why Caliiornia, despite Secession from the united states having a large percentage of people in favor there (since Trump) wouldn't be able to secede (even if they would successfully hold a Referendum within their state about it)

There isn't a difference many times. That doesn't matter. The states have rights. It's as simple as that. This is the deal that was made and don't expect it to change. If California doesn't like it too bad.

Noone keeps me from learning martial arts in order to be able to defend myself.
Also noone would say a word if I would just grab a shovel or frying pan and smash it over the head of the intruder.
Likewise, in my own home I am allowed to use CS gas weapons or pepper spray without needing a license.
(only if I would want to carry those weapons outside I would need the small weapons liense, which is rather easy to obtain however, if I am no addict, have no criminal record, am 18+ and am mentally and physically fit to wield the weapons)

Now an example from the USA:
In the middle of the night you hear some noises in your home despite you should be alone.
You see some movement in the darkness of your home and fire your pistol into the darkness.
You hear a thump and see a body fall to the ground.
After you switch on the light you see that you just killed your son, who was supposed to not come home from his holidays before tomorrow (but came back earlier and wanted to surprise you)

Involuntary manslaughter scenarios similary to the one I just gave as an example are a big problem if a gun is at home

This has nothing to do with you not having the right to defend yourself, which is fundamental.

[Proteus_MST]

I'm sure Jefferson was no big fan of Sharia law. You go on and believe what you will.

Many of the muslims travelling to the USA are no fans of the sharia laws as well ... which is why they go to the USA

There isn't a difference many times. That doesn't matter. The states have rights. It's as simple as that. This is the deal that was made and don't expect it to change. If California doesn't like it too bad.

That doesn't make it a fair system for the citizens of the united states (at least not for the majority of the citizens of the united states)

This has nothing to do with you not having the right to defend yourself, which is fundamental.

We have the right to defend ourselves.
We just have no right to own firearms unless we have a (large) weapons license.

Although even there are multiple differences as well ... if, for example, you are a member of a shooting club, you are allowed to own a certain number of small calibre guns (after a few exams regarding weapons expertise and rights ... and if you are 18+), but have to keep ammo and gun locked away (at separate places) in your home and have to transport it in a locked suitcase to the shooting range.
Also, if you are a Hunter, you are also allowed to own a long firearm (i.e. rifle) and a short fiirearm (i.e. pistol) after passing the exams for your hunting license (and are allowed to use them on your hunting gronds).

Also I should add that we are allowed to own Bows and Crossbows and also Swords without neeeding a license. So, you can have a certain range of weapons that can be used for self defense in your home if you think you need them, just no firearms (and also are restricted regarding th range of weapons you are allowed to carry (ready to use) outside of your home, without having a small or large weapons license)

[Kidlicious]

Many of the muslims travelling to the USA are no fans of the sharia laws as well ... which is why they go to the USA

If they don't like Sharia then they must be republican. How many do you think are republican?
Btw, Jefferson was no liberal. Not by a ling shot.

That doesn't make it a fair system for the citizens of the united states (at least not for the majority of the citizens of the united states)
,

It is called a compromise. That's how government works. You know you let people say what they want and you get to say what you want. But this is hard for liberals to understand for some reason.
,

We have the right to defend ourselves.
We just have no right to own firearms unless we have a (large) weapons license.

You don't understand what a right is. I still can't believe that you think using a frying pan is a right. We have a constitutional right to own a firearm to defend ourselves. This has nothing to do with hunting. This can not be taken away. Jefferson agrees with me, "inalienable rights."

[Proteus_MST]

If they don't like Sharia then they must be republican. How many do you think are republican?

Why would they have to be republican?
I don't see any reason why only republicans should be the ones who may be against the implementation of Sharia as a national law.
Especially considering that AFAIK you yourself were the one who mentioned how broad the range of people (and their opinions) in each of the 2 big parties in tthe USA is

Btw, Jefferson was no liberal. Not by a ling shot.
It is called a compromise. That's how government works. You know you let people say what they want and you get to say what you want. But this is hard for liberals to understand for some reason.

A compromise that reduces democracy in your country

,
You don't understand what a right is. I still can't believe that you think using a frying pan is a right. We have a constitutional right to own a firearm to defend ourselves. This has nothing to do with hunting. This can not be taken away. Jefferson agrees with me, "inalienable rights."

The right for self defense and the right to bear arms are 2 different rights (with the latter, even in your own country, being subject to different legislature depending on the state you are in, regarding carrying weapons in public, as well aas obtaining them). Actually even in your own country the right to possess firearmshas limits (AFAIK in almost all tates automatic firearms are forbidden for possession ... and AFAIK you also aren't legally allowed to possess heavier weapons (like working artillerie pieces, AA guns, anti tank weapons, tanks with functioning guns and the like)

Also IIRC the 2nd amendment includes something about the right being subject to a regular militia or the like ... which many interpret as firearms only being allowed insofar as you are part of such a militia

[Egbert]

Would you like to comment on the exemption in the ban to people of 'minority religions' who come from those majority Muslim states?

Allow me to explain so that you deepen your understanding of "TrumpThink".

Banning Muslims really is a ban on Muslims.

However, if you ban everyone from a predominantly Muslim country and exempt everyone who is not Muslim, that is not a ban on Muslims.

Banning everyone except those who are not Muslim is not a ban on Muslims if you coprrectly apply "TrumpThink".


Ooooh look. I, braindead, have invented a new word. I have named my new word in honour of the POTUS.

[Egbert]

How did federally owned land vote in the election?

Dead people vote in Chicago.

What's the problem with land voting?

[Kidlicious]

Why would they have to be republican?
I don't see any reason why only republicans should be the ones who may be against the implementation of Sharia as a national law.
Especially considering that AFAIK you yourself were the one who mentioned how broad the range of people (and their opinions) in each of the 2 big parties in tthe USA is

Because it's very popular among liberals to treat muslims as victims, regardless of their beliefs. For example, one of the organizers for the Woman's March is an advocate for Sharia, and even called for women who criticize Islam to be punished according to Sharia Law. That and we have Canada on the verge of instituting a blasphemy law regarding Islam. How many countries in Europe already have these laws?

Anyone who is serious about defending the world from Sharia is NOT liberal. How could they be?

,

A compromise that reduces democracy in your country

And makes the union possible. And protects the union from terrorism and other problems which we would have in a pure democracy.

The right for self defense and the right to bear arms are 2 different rights (with the latter, even in your own country, being subject to different legislature depending on the state you are in, regarding carrying weapons in public, as well aas obtaining them). Actually even in your own country the right to possess firearmshas limits (AFAIK in almost all tates automatic firearms are forbidden for possession ... and AFAIK you also aren't legally allowed to possess heavier weapons (like working artillerie pieces, AA guns, anti tank weapons, tanks with functioning guns and the like)

Also IIRC the 2nd amendment includes something about the right being subject to a regular militia or the like ... which many interpret as firearms only being allowed insofar as you are part of such a militia

Trust me, people in this country want the right to own guns to defend themselves. If you would actually talk to people who own guns you might know that. But what do you care. You are an elitist that believes that people don't deserve the right to defend themselves.

[Egbert]

The ban is to protect the country from terrorism. That is clearly stated in the XO. That means that it is NOT a ban on Muslims. Even a ****** can understand that. This is nothing but tyranny.

This is not true.

I am retarded and I do not understand this.

Does that mean I am insufficiently retarded?

[Kidlicious]

This is not true.

I am retarded and I do not understand this.

Does that mean I am insufficiently retarded?

Not to name any names, but someone once told me that there wouldn't be anymore terrorist attacks in Europe. The next day there was an attack. I asked him if he regretted making that prediction and he said that it wasn't really a prediction. He said that it wasn't right to say that there would be another attack even though everyone knew that there would be another attack.

So when people say that we don't need this ban to protect the United States I just kind of smile. I never know what their motivation is for saying something like that.

One thing is for sure. Sharia has the most negative effect on the world out of all ideologies, but liberals are just worried about conservatives. They talk about Nazis but they are really mostly concerned about conservatives, the only people who can save the world from Sharia.

[Proteus_MST]

...
Anyone who is serious about defending the world from Sharia is NOT liberal. How could they be?

Who talked about ddefending the world from Sharia?
Not wanting to live under Sharia and not wanting to have the Sharia imposed in the land where you live in doesn't isn't the same as imposing your own will on other countries in the world (i.e. forcing other countries to get rid of the Sharia)
I should also add that the Republicans also don't seem to be serious about "defending the world from Sharia".
The government under both Bushs has workd happily together with Saudi Arabia, despite the fact that Sharia there sometimes is even strictr than in Iran (with no cinemas being allowed, women not being allowed to drive cars and some really despicable things (for example about the schoolgirls and the fire )
It is very clear that Trump also doesn't have any intention about "defending the world from Sharia", no surprise there, considering that his own companies are happy with doing business in Saudi Arabia.

,
And makes the union possible. And protects the union from terrorism and other problems which we would have in a pure democracy.

I don't think the Electorate system is of any use against terrorism.
And it wouldn't even protect the world from Hitler 2 getting elected, considering how little resistance there was against Trump. The electors would as happily vote Hitler into power (if he got the majority of electors) as they did with Trump (especially considering that they both used similar populist methods in ordr to gain power)

Trust me, people in this country want the right to own guns to defend themselves. If you would actually talk to people who own guns you might know that. But what do you care. You are an elitist that believes that people don't deserve the right to defend themselves.

Shouldn't one rather talk to the people who don't own any guns in order to find out what the majority thinks?
There are "just" around 55 million registered gun owners out of a population of 250 million adults, so the majority of US citizens doesn't own a gun.
(even if we take into account that one doesn't need to be a registered gun owner to have a gun at home (after all it could be that it is the spouse or parents to which the gun is registered) it is just 40% of US households which have a gun)

However, the polls are clear ... while there currently is a tiny majority of people who are supportive of the right to own guns, there is also a clear majority who want to have stricter regulations on teh sale of guns
See here:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx

Obviously your own people are elitists who want to take away the right of mentally unstable or mentally disabled people to freely buy a gun in order to defend themselves


(also you didn't say anything about the restrictions on the purchase of fully automatic rifles, tanks (with working guns), artillery pieces and AA by citizns? Don't you defend the right of citizens to defend themselves if baddies come with tanks, planes or come in so large numbers that you have to spray automatic fire in all directions? )