More people died from rejected white boys with weapons and toddlers than muslims in 14 yrs

Well I'm from Cleveland and a few of my closest friends there are Islamic.
There's Muslim's everywhere dipshit. Just because you haven't met any doesn't mean there aren't any at all.

Sock it to 'em, Rose!

Rose is right. And besides guestwho, you cant tell someone is Muslim just from a glance all the time. Someones faith is not always easily seen, not all Muslims wear hijabs or kurtas or whatever you have in mind.

OK I can't not respond here. Try reading the Constitution please. It says nothing about the president not being able to control who comes in or on what grounds. In fact, it gives the Congress complete and final say on the matter. Congress then gave the president full authority to ban whoever the administration sees fit to ban, on whatever grounds the president wishes to use in the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. This law was used by president Carter to ban Iranians in 1979.
Google is an amazing resource. Please educate yourself a little bit on this subject.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_religion_in_the_United_States
Freedom of religion, banning a large group of people because of their religion violates this.

No, it doesn't. Trump has in no way prevented anyone from practising their religion. The First Amendment does not even come close to saying that foreign citizens have an inalienable rights to practice their religion on our soil. I'm floored by the depth of your misunderstanding here.

And I'm appalled by the fact you still try to stand up to this expired carrot.
Is he going after them and holding them back from doing something in America because of their religion? yes?? that's religious persecution, and yes, believe it or not, it's a violation of freedom of religion.

He targeted the seven countries in the list had been compiled by his predecessor, because those countries had been noted as having a problem with extremists coming in and committing terrorist acts. He did not institute a ban on Muslims, he instituted a ban on any citizen from those countries, regardless of whether or not they were Muslim. It is not a violation of personal or religious freedom. It's simply a brick wall put up in front of a problem.

Then why didn't he ban Saudi Arabia? they have terrorist groups there and immigrants too. Oh right, because he has business there.
He never said anything about blockading any country other than Mexico, blockading these middle Eastern countries is his way around the laws to ban Muslim's.

You know the whole "He has business there so he didn't ban them" is a load of crap. A bunch of "news" stories only ran that because it was their first gut reaction and they knew people who read their articles don't confirm the actuality of the statements enclosed within.
And it's pretty convenient that you can just still come back to "Well it still bans Muslims from THOSE countries, so it must be a Muslim thing. What about those who aren't Muslim who are fleeing those countries to find a better life? Are they just worth less because they aren't Muslim? Or do you only care about Muslims because they can claim some oppressed status?

He literally has a golf course is Saudi Arabia sweetums.
Again, he's banning majority Muslim countries, after making multiple claims about banning Muslim's.
I don't see why that's so hard to understand.

How will banning them stop them from using his golf course?

It's basic economics. The people of Saudi Arabia would stop going as a means of protest, losing him even more money, plus we wouldn't be able to travel to the course until the ban is lifted.

Glad you can answer at least one of my questions. Can you answer the question I have about caring about Muslims only because they can claim oppressed status?

In as simple language as I can muster: Trump has temporarily halted travel and refugees from a small handful of countries that have been proven to be terrorist training grounds. The majority religions of these particular countries is of absolutely no consequence.
Besides which, your side has been trying to say that these terrorists are not Muslims anyway. Now you claim they are Muslims. Make up your minds.

I really want an answer if this person cares more about Muslims than about non-denominal refugees trying to find a better life.

No no I care about everyone, but this is literally all just because trump pisses himself over the thought of Muslim's entering the us because he thinks they're all terrorists

It would appear so, but my assumption is that she (yes I'm assuming gender) is simply parroting what is pouring out of the sewers of social media without really thinking about it.

Not arguing any pros or cons about the travel ban, but there's like 50 Muslim-majority countries in the world and we're only banning people from 7 of them. That's a pretty shitty Muslim ban, since it doesn't effect 86% of Muslim-majority states. I mean, there's billions of practitioners of Islam, we're still letting most of them in.

I'm nearly speechless.

Wait, isn't Saudi Arabia an ally?
Yep. Why the fuck would he ban an ally?

He can get things out of the other countries; gold, oil, goods, business, not so much from the other countries he had banned. He wants profit.

BECAUSE US AND SAUDI ARABIA FUCKING TRADE LIKE EVERY GOOD ALLY DOES WITH EACH OTHER.

It's like shouting at a deaf, dumb, and blind person. They'll never comprehend you.

I'm confused..... according to anti-Trump people: Trump hates Muslims? And he does business in Saudi Arabia (primarly Muslim)? So he likes Muslims enough to do business with them but he hates them enough that he doesnt want any in the country? But when he wants to work with them and build a company designed to make money from serving/entertaining Muslims then their religion doesnt matter? You guys poked holes in your own argument.

Damn Rose is on fucking fire. I just listened to the livestream of the argument before the 9th circuit court of appeals, and in no uncertain terms we know that a ban based on religion is unconstitutional even if it doesn't ban all members of the religious class. All that needs to be shown that the action was motivated "in some way" by animus against a certain religious class. I think that can be EASILY shown given the executives campaigning, especially if we get to the discovery phase and start subpoenaing emails.

Even if it does work, what is the end result? What is your golden brick road to Oz? Cause last time I checked, America has it's own shit to deal with. Welfare, for one, is sapping us dry because hoodrats don't want to work, and illegal immigrants who didn't have careers back where they were aren't being a boon to our nation. Homelessness is rising; as is incarceration rates. Our debt is enough to fly to Saturn and back. America can't be a soup kitchen for long. And when this country has another shutdown, we might crash and fall and not get back up.

I love that almost all of what you're saying is purely opinion based, you're not giving me any proof as to compliment your argument, nor are you being mature about it.
Throughout trumps campaign, he's only complained of the Mexican immigration problem. Never has he mentioned immigration problems of the countries (who are majority Islamic) in which he banned. If it was an immigration problem, he would have banned Mexico too, no? He's only complained about Isis, banning Muslim's, and carrying out with Hitler like procedures to Muslim's, including making them wear badges and stalking their online life.

Correlation does not equal causation. I'm pretty sure you've heard this term before, you'd have to live under a rock not to. Just because he's banning primarily Muslim countries does not mean that's the reason he's banning them. He's stated OVER AND OVER it's not because of religion, there's many more Muslim countries who AREN'T on the banned list, yet everyone continues to say that the reason is for religious reasons, despite having numerous other more likely reasons liek the fact that there's been a huge influx in terrorist attacks recently and an increase in crime in countries that are accepting more refugees ? The government has a duty to protect their country, even if it means banning non citizens. Yes it sucks innocent people get hurt but won't you be bitching and moaning if they made it lax and let a fuckton of terrorists in ? It's better to prevent something from happening than fixing it in the aftermath and right now this is the best solution: a TEMPORARY ban.

Please link all your evidence if you feel so strongly about it all. Besides, the NSA and the Feds stalk us all online watching what we do, doesn't matter too much, they all know what our fetishes are. It only seems you care enough about a part of the whole thing, since it's so disastrous to monitor a group more inclined to become terrorists than say, people coming in from Mexico.

Literally just watch his damn debates and interviews sweetums. He never says anything about immigration from the countries he banned. Maybe you should watch them before making any decisions or broad statements about the topic.

No amount of " sweetums " is going to make your argument less idiotic. It makes you sound condescending, which everyone hates.
Furthermore, maybe if you realized it was a TEMPORARY ban, you wouldn't be so mad about it. It's a halt for 90 DAYS for reasons of security to countries that have had the most terrorist activity as of late. If it was a Muslim ban you'd have more Muslim countries being banned than just the 7 that are on there. And as far as I know a few of those countries also ban visitors from certain countries so it's not just us. And with the recent influx of immigrants from those countries OF COURSE it's about immigration. You can't just let a whole country in unchecked.
If you think it's about religion show me your RELIABLE sources of where he's said he's going to do these WW2+esque things to Muslims.

It doesn't matter how long it's been, someone already died from it, and people aren't able to come home.
And literally. Watch. His. Debates. And. Interviews. Hear it from his own gross mouth! I don't know what would be much more reliable than that!
And it's supposed to sound condescending, I thought you'd realize that since you're oh so sharp.

I am asking you to back up your claims, I shouldn't have to go find your sources for you. I might as go find my own to prove you wrong instead of providing sources for YOUR argument.

Whatever you say man, I can just give you the links to his interviews, rallies, and debates. I really shouldn't have to though, if you're so confident in this oompa loompa with tiny hands, you would have watched them even before he was elected into office.

You're forgetting to back up your own sourced by the way

Did no one notice that sero literally just said they didn't care whether the ban was constitutional or not? My god.

@occams_gillette I like you man, you seem fun
As for the tweedle dee and dumb over here, give Me your sources, and I'll give you mine, fair?

I thought I was the only one on here schooling these ignoramus.' I'll toss in some sources just to be a pal. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/jan/29/jerrold-nadler/have-there-been-terrorist-attacks-post-911-countri/ https://thinkprogress.org/trump-who-campaigned-on-a-muslim-ban-says-to-stop-calling-it-a-muslim-ban-630961d0fbcf#.sbmbhsxkc oh look this last one quotes an explicit quote of Donald's saying he wants to call for a ban of Muslims into the United States. Don't give me the "It's not a Muslim ban" garbage. It's enough under the lemon test to totally invalidate the ban under the establishment clause (for idiots, that's the first amendment).

I'm saying even if you do win. I'm not saying it's not constitutional. I know it is because it's not religious, you guys just changed it to #MuslimBan
Maybe you read too much into my comment before I say anything.

@occams_gillette I literally love you right now
@serosenpai that's because it's the closest trump can get to a Muslim ban, because if he straight out banned Muslim's, it would go against the constitution, so instead he's banning Muslim majority countries he can't make a profit out of, you don't seem to be comprehending that. Now come on, show me some links to support your claims.

http://nypost.com/2017/01/30/no-trumps-immigration-plan-isnt-un-american/
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2017/01/wrong-trump-immigration-ban-170130102549929.html
http://nypost.com/2017/02/06/sorry-trumps-immigration-order-is-totally-legal/
http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/article/2017/feb/03/donald-trumps-executive-order-muslim-ban/
http://www.therebel.media/pamela_geller_trump_s_gorgeous_executive_order_is_not_a_muslim_ban
http://dailysignal.com/2017/02/06/trumps-executive-order-on-immigration-is-both-legal-and-constitutional/

Sero, literally click the link I provided right in front of your face. Since you can't even do that, here "On December 7th, 2015, Trump called for a 'total and complete shutdown of the entry of Muslims to the United States.'" yes, the source I sourced even sources that quote, so don't get fresh with me. Under US Constiutional law, for a law to be struck down as unconstitutional, it MERELY must be motivated IN PART by animus against a religious group. Larkin v. Grendel's Den, Inc. 459 U.S. 116 (1982) It doesn't matter if there's a legitimate interest. Even if terrorism WAS a problem from those countries (it isn't. See first link above), Donald has made it clear that this is motivated (at least in part, which is all that is required) by religious animus, and therefore unconstitutional. Don't speak to me again until you have specific sources to refute my argument, preferably rooted in US case law, not just random, extremest trash about *heavy air quotes* "terrorists" and "radical islam."

Just gonna leave this here too...
https://funsubstance.com/fun/390024/just-gonna-put-this-here/

Okay Sero either your reading comprehension is in the trash or you just googled websites that had headlines that you THOUGHT proved your point but really doesn't. None of them address important and critical establishment clause and equal protection clause debate, and none of them are rooted in law. In fact, the article from politifact explicitly states that Donald called for a Muslim Ban AND that none of those countries had ever orchestrated a terrorist attack on the US. The ones saying it's legal pushes the fact that the president has immigration power but conveniently refuses to recognize that the judicial branch has power to review presidential decisions for unconstitutional bullshit (you know, three branches of government and all that). I wouldn't hire you to do research for me.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-sz0KY-3PbQ
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Fq0rbR5Ap3c
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=knbAlKgnm0w
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YsieTbCeBhs
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5iPQvVE1gmM
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/dec/07/donald-trump-ban-all-muslims-entering-us-san-bernardino-shooting
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/262348-trump-calls-for-shutdown-of-muslims-entering-us

Thanks, Unkle, but I have read it because I'm not a blowhard.

You've read what you've wanted from it, and using that, have made it into a muslim issue.

None of those countries have officially made an act of terrorism against the US, but what has happened is terrorist groups and individuals hailing from those predominantly muslim countries have committed enough acts of terrorism to where Obama's Adminstration made the list of the seven countries, believing that they should impose a temporary ban on the countries to try to get a better hold on how to stop terrorists from coming to American soil. Which they did. They imposed a similar ban on the same countries, the difference was, the Migrant Crisis wasn't in full swing, and not enough bombs had been dropped to really piss off the natives. Now that they are fleeing from ruined countries that bombs and warfare has torn apart, it is well known that terrorist groups recruit from people fleeing that area, and they want these people to go to the US and other Western countries to spread their idealogy and war to those places. Trump is simply imposing a more lengthy ban.

All right Tarot, met me lay it down for you. There's a difference between intent and what you say. Just like I mentioned above, all that is necessary is a discriminatory INTENT to make an action unconstitutional. I know this must be hard for you, because the EO didn't say "Muslim Ban." Here's an example. Your parents intended to have you as a desperate attempt to save the last vestiges of their marriage, but they TELL you that it's because they wanted you and love you. You see the intent is different from the words they say because they know those words would make them look bad. Discriminatory intent in this EO is OBVIOUS. You look like a joke. ALSO, nothing you've said has addressed the deep constitutional issues at play here. It doesn't matter what Obama did. If the EO is ruled unconstitutional it's going down.

It would be discriminatory if travel agents had to ask if you ate bacon or not if they wanted to let you on the flight. There is not constitutional issue. If it was perfectly legal and okay for Obama and previous presidents to pass travel bans then it is fine for Trump to do so. He has not cut off all immigration from all muslim countries, he has stopped citizens of countries on a watchlist from coming to the US. And by the way it always tickles me that you and a thousand others are so focused on it being a muslim issue that I'm pretty sure none of care about non-muslim refugees who may have well been screwed over by the ban being implemented. Definitely a muslim issue though, poor muslims. How will they ever get to the States now for that western life-style they so desperately crave. By definition, you can argue that the EO is discriminating, but it's not making people go though planes kicking off people if they object to a picture of Mohammed or if they'll eat a bacon strip.

If you're not going to read what I have to say then don't bother talking to me. What you just said in no way addressed what I'm arguing. Fuck off with that weak shit, it doesn't fly.

Legit though it's so painfully obvious that it was aimed at Muslim's, I don't see how you assholes don't see that. Throughout his entire campaign, one of his biggest topics were banning Muslim's and terrorism. Now that's technically illegal and breaks the constitution. So what's the next best thing he can do? right, ban Muslim countries he doesn't have businesses In. Like I said, if it were about immigration, he would have banned Mexico too, and maybe even the rest of the world seeing as how almost every country has immigrants that come here.

Still haven't read that Constitution have you? IT IS NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!

I understand the intention behind the ban, but some of the countries that were behind major terrorist attacks aren't even included in the movement, for example; Saudi Arabia, the origin of majority of the people involved in 9/11, which ISN'T included in the ban. So either people don't know what they're talking about, or something is quite iffy.

Saudi Arabia is an ally, and was since 2008.

But if they're banning countries simply for the sake of keeping terrorists out, why aren't they included? Even Egypt is not part of the ban, and the leader of the 9/11 hijackers was Egyptian; Mohammed Atta

They're countries of concern. Trump's just making this temp ban to see why the Obama Administration made this list.

Some of the countries Trump hasn't banned (that have high levels of violence) have been the ones he has business interests with; Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Azerbaijan. (https://www.google.co.uk/amp/amp.timeinc.net/fortune/2017/01/27/donald-trump-muslim-immigration-ban-conflict/%3Fsource%3Ddam )

I just wanna jump in and say this: It is not about 9/11 anymore.
Al Queada and the Taliban are fading away, being pinched by western forces and having their recruits poached by ISIS. The war wages on, but against an enemy worse than we started with.

Okay just wana jump in here famousone, tht statement is far from true. All the terrorist groups still have very strong presents maybe not in certain areas anymore but they just got stronger in other areas. Also @spazz this whole allegation that trump didnt ban certain countries because of his business dealings are idiotic. It's because of A M E R I C A S business dealings with those countries, all the countries not listed in the ban are allies of america or have strong business ties. I.e. you get your oil from saudi arabia just imagine fucking banning them. You liberals are idiots.

I'm not a liberal, I'm not even American. What I'm saying is the fact that if they truly are banning countries based on how dangerous they are, they should include ALL countries that have such a level of violence, not choose a select few just because it suits their needs and wants. It's just hypocritical and contradicting.

That seems like a good idea on paper spaz but the reality is that economics indeed come into play here in a grand way. A better approach would be to use our oil purchasing volume from Saudi Arabia to leverage the Saudi's to take care of their own violent people problem. That way we dont involve our troops, money or resources at all. If your leadership style is to love everybody and back away from conflict, this approach isn't even an option (example Obama). But you better believe it's on the table with a strong negotiator who made his living off of leverage and deal making. Thats the same logic that developed "mexico paying for the wall". It's harsh for sure but the deals have been lopsided for far to long and the US can no longer afford to supplement other country's lifestyles. That's why Trump exsists. The US middle class have been beaten up for too long and the ones who understand the larger picture are fighting back....hard.

Trump defenders stink like Putin's smegma. It's sucha see through propaganda, they are even becoming him, willingly or unwillingly. Same expressions, same attitudes, same rhetoric. I'm scared.

You sure seem amazingly willing to group half of the US poulation into a stereotype. Whatever you think you know about people who voted for trump, i assure you that you don't have the whole picture. I know this because what you just typed couldnt be further from the truth. What big media whant you to believe about trump and his voters is a long long ways from the truth. Fyi, i didnt vote for him because i approve of 100% of his behaviors, beliefs, and promises. And shame on you for assuming thats the case with me or anyone else you drop into that stereotypical bucket.

Just saying, you never had "Putinesque" Berluskonilike president, people grabbing pussies, with Barbie dolls wives, arrogant, spoiled, sexist, banning this banning that, that's Putinism. He also, as well as Mussolini and Franco and Gaddafi and Pinochet and Amin promised making their country great again. And failed miserably. Trump looks up to that gnome Putana Putin.

Clearly you're concerned with who you think Trump is. I'm more concerned with what he is'nt. And what he's not, is a career political puppet of the DNC or the GOP. He's not the standard inside presidential candidate like a Clinton, Bush, Romney, or even Obama. For decades the president hasn't been chosen by the people. It has ALWAYS been someone selected by either of the two parties and contrary to what you think, they are all puppets of the people in control of the parties. That is until now. Still today, neither the GOP or DNC want trump as president because he represents a disruption to the power and control they've become so accustomed to.

Unfortunatly a wholesome person who i'd consider a good role model president doesnt stand a chance of breaking into the DC inner circle (example Bernie or Dr Carson). The only way in is to have a juggernaut of a man fueld by ego, stubbornness, leverage, leadership, celebrity, and private money.
So is he ideal? Hell no. Is he the best chance the American people have of making the powers-that-be get serious about watching out for the best interests of the people who don't belong to the inner circle of the Washington establishment? UNQUESTIONABLY! Am i willing to put up with character trates that i disagree with in order to make that happen? 100%.

So when i tell you that you dont understand the big picture of Trump support, that's exactly what i mean.

https://www.quora.com/Which-race-does-the-most-mass-shootings-per-capita-in-the-US
Here's my proof uwu

@ rose_garden white boys don't loot towns nearly as much as black boys do, doll

https://therationalists.org/2016/07/13/why-do-black-people-commit-more-crime/

"Doll" check for condescending, if only "womansplaining" was a thing I'd nost definitely call you out for that. Secondly, "why black people commit more crime" yes the system fucked them over, wana now figure out why white kids are shooting schools? And also so what if black people have a "reason" for it, how does that make it any better than school shooting? Fuckin liberals.

Hey @Rose_Garden I have an interesting site for you, keep in mind that there are 5.2225852 more white people to African American people. This website not only shows what it would look like if the roles were reversed (196,817,552 African Americans to 37,685,848 white people) But it also shows if there were the same amount of each (basically 50/50 population wise) https://infogr.am/Black-34991937313

Honey I never said black people don't commit crimes, but they don't shoot up schools and churches nearly as much

No need to "Honey" me, I'm just giving you a source that I found that shows you where I'm coming from. Also I never said you wrong so get off your high-horse and stop thinking everybody is attacking you.

I'm not saying or thinking anyone is attacking me, I'm just stating my side of the argument.

An idiotic argument at that. Sweetie, the whole point of this post is classing races as a certain type of criminal due to the number of crimes they commit, so if white people are school shooters and muslims are terrorists does that mean african americans are straight up criminals :)? Okay babes? Lovely honey. ;)

Sweetum poopy putter I'm the poster. The point of the post is to point out the threat of Muslim terrorists isn't as bad as its put out to be.
Ya'll are so afraid of Muslim terrorists you'll ban them and deem all Muslim's terrorists, but if a white boy shoots up the school, ges just "misunderstood" and there's "still good white guys out there"

Nobody has called mass-shooters "misunderstood".
Be careful you don't fall too in love with your own narrative.

One on topic, I don't quite agree with your title. "White boys" with guns have killed far less than Islamic radicals and terrorists have for hundreds of years.

@rose_garden I'm on your side, no-no on the ban and everything, I like you have balls, but I still don't understand why you post "I fear white weapon- wielders more than Muslim weapon -wielders", my Muslims are blondes, you wouldn't know if that guy Kurt Haris from your class (Muslim name and surname Kurt meaning wolf) father name Elvis (also very popular Muslim name here) is Muslim and if he started shooting up people right now, your first thought would be, crazy American boi, and he's ISIS. Trump makes same mistake as you. He would let Kurt Haris, or Zlatan Kalach from Serbia, blond blue eyes, no turban no beard, no middle east features, with bottle of alcohol in hands, or porn magazine, entering US with his sister Dina, Leyla, Maira, Elvira Kalach in shorts that show half of vagina.

Let me explain a little more. You always hear about how Muslim's are evil and whatever, and then this ban happened.
No one talks about the fact other people, even toddlers, kill more people than isis has thus far.
If we're going by statistics of terrorist like attacks, the amount of people killed in school shooting perpetrated by white boys should be the ones banned, not Muslim's. I'm not saying all white boys are evil, but instead I'm making a statement to show how stupid the xenophobic people are with their argument of "all Muslim's are terrorists"

Toddlers have existed for like eternity. Isis started 2012 ish. And you simply saying that whole thing about white boys disproves your argument.

No one is saying that all Muslims are evil. The reason that Donald Trump is banning travel from those countries is because he doesn't want to risk more terrorists coming into our country. And if you're saying that we should ban guns, look at what happened in England when they banned handguns. The crime rate was through the roof. If anything, we need to arm and train our teachers. A sign in front of the school saying that no weapons are allowed doesn't do shit about someone who is about to go commit mass murder, as they don't give a damn about the laws at that point. It's not like they're planning to get a job or go back to school the next day. If you weren't talking about banning weapons, then you were referring to banning white boys themselves, which is just insane. Most of the U.S. is white legal people, and you're talking about throwing them all out?

Yeah you'll see some of us saying racist shit, but you'll see a lot of us and LGBT rallies and memorials and mourning the school shootings. Because we don't see them as any specific race or gender, we just see them as the psychopaths they are. Also, there is racist shit against whites all the time too, so don't act innocent. Every race is bad, every race is racist, because we are bad as a species when it comes to equality. However, pinning all of these problems on white people or black people or Muslim people won't die shit, as we are all collectively assholes, and the only thing we can do is try to change that.

I understand that, but you are not hearing me.
Isis is seen as terrible, right? And they are, but they haven't killed as many people as other types of people may have. Trump wants to stop the problem before it becomes one, and that's the point of the ban, and with that logic, wouldn't it be safer to ban toddlers and white boys, pretty much Anyone with access to guns?

That'd infringe on the autonomy and liberty of American citizens.
If we let the government strip Americans of those things, we'd deserve ISIS.
.
ISIS also has the statistical advantage of only having existed for a few years.

Don't you think theres a difference in intent between babies and isis? Accident vs intentional harm? Maybe?

As far as white boys (incredibly racist btw), is there an organized group of whiteboys who believe their purpose is to kill certain groups of people? If so, by all means.... ban away.
I still hold firm on not banning babies though.

Also, did you actually just say that we should ban white toddlers because they can use guns?

I'm saying it rhetorically in the intent of "stopping a problem before it becomes one"

Rose you do understand that's what is trying to be accomplished by the pause of immigration. Emphasis on "Trying"

Rose, if you were president, how would you stop extreme terrorism?

I'm smart enough to realize there is no way of stopping it.
Background checking is a pretty good start though. Find out who has any affiliation with the terrorist group, any past quarrels with hate crimes involving anything anti religion and anti America. Send spies to keep an eye on them and collect the data, and act when I see it appropriate;killing the person who is part of the group.
It's really not that hard.

I realize we dont have all the information the White House does. But if you planned on exicuting your above plan, where do you suspect (geographically speaking) the majority of your background checks, spying, and action taking would be happening?

Saudi Arabia and Egypt. That's where a good portion of terrorist groups take homage in

Rose, you seem pretty intelligent, I imagine you see where i'm going with this. Being that those are Muslim majority countries wouldnt that make you racist?

Of course not. Muslim isn't a race, it's a religion. It wouldn't make me xenophobic either, as I see not every single Muslim is a terrorist, but those two countries seem to produce the most Isis members. We would only look into the suspicious, no innocent person would be hurt, at least purposely.

Oh rose, my dear, I can only say DUH... You kinda have to check them all out to determine who needs further checking in the real world. How in hell do you propose to determine who is "suspicious" and who is "innocent" without vetting them?????????????????????????
Please enlighten us with your magic oh wise and powerful mage.

That's some wonderful sarcasm you have there. It's not Magic, it's logic, something you seem to lack greatly. Ever heard of criminal records? Just keep an eye on those. It's not that difficult. Security cameras too. And we already do this; but look for key words on social media that could indicate intended acts if terrorism.

Do you REALLY think that any terrorists trying to get into this country from a terrorist ridden country are going to have computerized criminal records that we can access?????
Do you REALLY think that, even if they did, computers work that fast that we could catch them as they walked through customs???????
Because in your world we would have to be in the process of allowing the terrorists to walk freely in so as to not inconvenience any poor little innocent bystanders.
Do you REALLY think that every terrorist has had an extensive, documented criminal history before committing their final acts??????????
If you actually believe the utterly incoherent liberal pap you are posting you need your mental faculties assessed. There appears to be no point in debating you, as you appear to be beyond the reach of simple logic. No sarcasm.

I just reread your response....
Cameras? CAMERAS??? REALLY????????
What, are we supposed to only stop those who LOOK like terrorists????
Ahem, let me see. How can I put this...
THAT'S EVERYONE AND THATS WHY WE NEED TO CHECK EVERYONE TO DETERMINE WHO IN HELL WARRANTS FURTHER SCRUTINY!
I'm practically at a loss for words here. You're just amazing.

You do realize that Saudis Arabia and Egypt are modernized countries, right? And we've found terrorists that way in the past.

Sure there are "known" terrorists. Not because they have a criminal history we can access on a computer terminal at the airport, but because the FBI, CIA, NSA, etc. etc. have been tracking them in exactly the same way Trump's executive order dictates. Furthermore, very few known terrorists actually commit the terror attacks. They are cowards that send others to do their dirty work. The only way to identify potential attackers is to delve into their past and their association with other suspects and known terrorists. That means looking at EVERYONE! If we have to inconvenience some poor whiney little Muslim crybabies until we can clear them so fucking what. This is OUR COUNTRY, NOT THEIRS, and we damn well have every right to protect ourselves as best we can.

Rose, how does what Trump is doing differ than what you're suggesting?

Trump issued a shutdown for ALL Muslim's, attacking even the innocents, and people who aren't even Muslim and may just be visiting the countries. He's not using logic, and not banning countries with large amounts of produced terrorists.
With my plan, only the suspicious may get hurt, and the terrorists will be tracked.

That's what you call an attack!??!!?
Geez you really just keep amazing me.
Trump's TEMPORARY pause of ONLY SEVEN COUNTRIES was intended ONLY to give us time to figure out how to better weed out your "suspicious" and not "hurt" your idea of "innocents". We cannot currently get a handle on this without "hurting" (to use your verbiage) everyone, and that's exactly what Trump wants to avoid!
I'm finding it difficult to remain civil with you. I do not wish to descend into insults, but I must admit you are trying my limits.
Let me just say that what you claim to want to happen is exactly what the Trump administration is trying to accomplish. Common sense, however, should dictate that we cannot continue to leave our borders wide open and our defenses down while we figure this out. American lives are more valuable that someone's personal feelings. We must secure our nation first and decide whether we care who we offend later.

If I'm trying your limits, that's a bit sad. Maybe you should just stop.
And yes it technically is an attack, as he's stopping them from coming into the us for no reason.
Someone already died from this, people aren't able to come into the us for life saving surgeries, innocent people are being harmed because trump can't get his fist out of his own ass.
And honey you give me the impression that you're the stereotypical white trash who cherry picks Bible verses, and frankly, I'm not listening to the uneducated who chooses to ignore the science behind global warming.

Rose, you said Trump "issued a shutdown for ALL Muslim's". I'm assuming you ment "all Muslims". I'm curious why you believe that's whats happening? I'm following this very closely and I dont believe he's singling out Muslims any more than what you suggested you would do if it were your decision. And as you pointed out, your plan isn't xenophobic or racist. Could you tell me why you believe thats the case with this executive order?

First and foremost rose, your entire premise is misguided.
No one. I repeat: NO ONE WHO IS NOT A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES HAS ANY RIGHT TO COME HERE.
This is our country and we have the right to determine who we allow in.
If you throw your faulty premise (that they have the same rights as citizens) out the window your entire argument is invalidated.

Throughout trumps campaign, he's mentioned multiple times he's wanted to issue a complete and total shut down of Muslim's entering the US. Since that's technically religious persecution and against the constitution on the grounds of religious freedom, he would have to go for the next best thing and ban countries with Muslim majority. However, if you noticed, he doesn't ban certain ones, but that's because he has his business there.
With my plan, it's not singling out the Muslim's, it goes after the suspicious. Anyone could join or be a part of Isis, so we just need to look for key elements from everyone, not just Muslim's.

@guestwho America is a country of immigrants. The first Americans werent white. Any skin colour other than the native Americans had no permission coming here, but look at that, they did anyways.

I dont recall Trump ever saying that he wanted to shut down all Muslims entering the country once much less many times. I clearly remember him saying he wanted to end all Muslim Extremists from entering or harming citizens. That differs from Obama's administration in that Obama refused to use the word "Muslim" when referring to the same terrorist groups because of political correctness. But they're talking about the same people.
Edit: he did technically say all Muslims temporarily until they had a way of screening the terrorists out.
Edit 2: the travel ban executive order doesnt mention the word Muslim even once.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LRxozK6Bpvk
"Mooslums"

Rose here is a link that shows NOBODY has died from the "ban on Muslims." And in case you don't read it, here is an excerpt "
.
A leading imam in Dearborn, Mich., who oversees a congregation of primarily Iraqi refugees, including Hager’s family, said Hager’s mother actually died at least five days before Trump’s executive order was put into place."
.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/post-nation/wp/2017/02/01/tale-of-an-iraqi-woman-dying-because-of-trump-travel-ban-unravels/?client=ms-android-samsung

UNTIL THEY FIND OUT WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON.

Thank you for sending me that, I wish I had found the article before.
But still, someone may need life saving procedures done in the us that can only be done there, someone COULD die, that story could become reality, just with different people.

I understand that rose, I just think that we should take care of American Citizens before we go helping refugees and immigrants. There are so many things wrong with this country, public schools are falling apart (and now they are doomed) our medical costs are going through the roof and we don't even take care of our veterans just to name a few. I mean it's just my opinion but shouldn't the goal of the government be to take care of us first?

Yes it should be, but we're spending so much on wars, so much on walls, so much on things that we don't need.
Look, I don't like illegals just as much as the next guy, but we shouldn't be stopping and deporting them completely. They make this country whole, without them we could collapse. However, if they've been here for years without benefiting the economy at all, then yeah, go ahead and deport or whatever.
With this whole ban, we should have at least considered alternatives. We shouldn't be picking more fights than what we already have.
We should be spending our taxes on better schools, better healthcare, ways to make the necessities more affordable.

Yes I agree that's what we should be spending money on, but the economy won't collapse without illegal immigrants. And trust me I know, the last war we should have been in was ww2. There has been no reason for any wars since then

I agree completely, aside from the illegals, but I won't argue. There's really no point in it. We all have our own opinions and thoughts on the issue.

@rose_garden are you sure you're not a bot? You seem to be only programmed with bumpersticker slogans.
I'm sure I'd be wasting my time explaining how faulty this premise is too so I'll simply say this.
The Indians did not control who got into their country and look what happened!

@guestwho and are you living in a trailer? Because you sound like white trash.
You complain of immigration when your ancestors did exactly that

What do his ancestors have to do with anything?

Doesn't matter.
Whatever sins the father may have committed doesn't concern the children.
Unless they intend to follow suit, of course.

Rose, your youtube link to a Trump speach is of him saying exactly what i wrote. For the record, theres a big difference between campaigning language and actions. Trump is a demagogue like every presidential candidate in history. He was saying whatever he thought would give him the best shot at getting elected. In reality, his executive order represents countries that make up less than 15% of the worlds Muslims. That means 1.36 billion Muslims are free to move in and out of the country as normal. That also means every non Muslim coming from those countries is included in the scrutiny.

Resorting to ad hominem insults already Rosie? No more DNC approved talking points to throw my way?
You must have a very solid argument. I concede the debate.

Btw sweetie, 20 million Americans live in mobile homes, many of those simply want a less complicated life, or are retired people looking to downsize after raising their families. To impugne nearly 10% of the population based solely on your personal prejudices about their housing makes you both classist and classless.

Well I thought this was over. Can't all of you please stop debating, nobody is going to agree with the others so there is no point anymore

No.

I'm done debating it. Any other comment in this thread gets deleted.

You just salty cause you lost

Nah, I just don't see a point in arguing when there's no one listening.

Why don't you all just shut up and move on. You all have different opinions, deal with it like adults and if you have to keep debating do it somewhere else

Keep in mind I literally said this comment thread is over. It's over, it's your fault for your audacity to keep commenting

Dirka dirka. Muhammad jihad!

I think they'll just keep coming back until you stop trying to silence them

Idc honestly
This proves they just don't have a life

Its like UC Berkley silencing an opposing POV all over again.

At least he isn't being a terrorist.

No, people are just tired of this constantly popping up in their notifications.

Oh, the horror!

Now your just being a dick Lol

Yah i guess i was. My bad lol

Lol I hope you aren't being sarcastic, you would be cool if you were actually serious

People know there's an "Unfollow Comments" button, right?

What?

Are you asking me? I was saying that there's an "Unfollow Comments" button for people who don't want posts showing up in their notifications.

When did this happen?

Where is it?

For the record, I was't being sarcastic.

Lol you are cool then :D I hope I didn't come off as an ass..