U.S. Elections: American Hitler 2016

[BloodRider]

1 minute ago, NestorMakhnosLovechild said:

Yes, of course. Why wouldn't you want to exclude them? 

My point is, who are the "them" now?

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

Just now, BloodRider said:

My point is, who are the "them" now?

"Them" = Non-US citizens attempting to enter the US or obtain citizenship who also believe that stoning homosexuals to death is appropriate. 

Glad we cleared that up. Is there a reason we wouldn't want to exclude them? 

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

At the end of the day Nestor, you have to ask yourself if it's a good idea to appropriate funds for a program that will probably not be a very effective deterrent for preventing likely terrorists from entering the country, but will absolutely send a bad message to both our allies and our enemies, likely be used as a recruitment tool for terrorist organization both at home and abroad and legitimize racists views in the U.S. 

To be clear, I never claimed that the purpose of such a procedure would be to deter terrorists from entering the country. I think that's actually quite unlikely. The actual purpose would be to minimize the number of people we allow into the country that hold certain types of views which are so far beyond the pale that they should not be tolerated in the United States. The primary benefit of excluding from the US a person who believes that say, gays should be stoned to death, is that we have one less person in the US who believes that gays should be stoned to death. 

The idea that wanting to exclude people from the US who believe they should be allowed to cut the clitorises off of little girls sends a "bad" message to our allies and enemies says, I think, more about you than the actual policy. Personally, I think that "we don't tolerate female genital mutilation" is a pretty good message. I guess you disagree with that for some reason, although I'm not quite sure why. 

As to whether or not it's going to be used as a "recruitment tool" for terrorists at home and abroad - well, maybe. But I've never been convinced that we should or should not do something based upon whether some person might be able convince someone to shoot a bunch of innocent people because of it. After all, terrorists seem surprisingly capable of coming up with all sorts of justifications for the murder of innocent people. Frankly, if your hypothesis is true. If, in fact, the United States taking a strong stand against allowing people into the country who want to engage in female genital mutilation is so damaging to the psyches of some Muslims that they, based upon that fact, could be convinced to kill a bunch of innocent people. Well, if true, that says something pretty disturbing about some Muslims, no?  

[butterbumps!]

25 minutes ago, NestorMakhnosLovechild said:

"Them" = Non-US citizens attempting to enter the US or obtain citizenship who also believe that stoning homosexuals to death is appropriate. 

Glad we cleared that up. Is there a reason we wouldn't want to exclude them? 

 

16 minutes ago, NestorMakhnosLovechild said:

To be clear, I never claimed that the purpose of such a procedure would be to deter terrorists from entering the country. I think that's actually quite unlikely. The actual purpose would be to minimize the number of people we allow into the country that hold certain types of views which are so far beyond the pale that they should not be tolerated in the United States. The primary benefit of excluding from the US a person who believes that say, gays should be stoned to death, is that we have one less person in the US who believes that gays should be stoned to death. 

How many people who hold these (what you're calling "beyond the pale") beliefs seek to come here?   And how many of those who hold these beliefs and come here act on said beliefs?  

Is the issue for you that people who want to come here shouldn't hold these beliefs even if they never act on it, that the virtue is simply in keeping one more person with these beliefs out?

If this is the idea, then isn't there something to be said for us to let them in instead, on the principle that immersion in this more liberal society might serve to change their beliefs more than remaining in their previous culture will?  One possibly fewer adherent of toxic ideology for the world?

[alguien]

2 hours ago, Dickwad Poster #3784 said:

So what would sway you? 

If "she" was a "he." Duh. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

20 minutes ago, NestorMakhnosLovechild said:

To be clear, I never claimed that the purpose of such a procedure would be to deter terrorists from entering the country. I think that's actually quite unlikely. The actual purpose would be to minimize the number of people we allow into the country that hold certain types of views which are so far beyond the pale that they should not be tolerated in the United States. The primary benefit of excluding from the US a person who believes that say, gays should be stoned to death, is that we have one less person in the US who believes that gays should be stoned to death. 

Obviously we don't want people with those types of beliefs to be entering the country, but you have to ask yourself if that is an active problem, and do the benefits of placing a wide spread ban outweigh the consequences? I'm not sure that they actually would. 

25 minutes ago, NestorMakhnosLovechild said:

The idea that wanting to exclude people from the US who believe they should be allowed to cut the clitorises off of little girls sends a "bad" message to our allies and enemies says, I think, more about you than the actual policy. Personally, I think that "we don't tolerate female genital mutilation" is a pretty good message. I guess you disagree with that for some reason, although I'm not quite sure why. 

All it says about me is that I try to factor in everything when making a policy decision, which is what you're taught to do. It's not unreasonable to assume that implementing a ban on certain groups of people could strain relations with our allies and/or exacerbate tensions with unfriendly countries. 

29 minutes ago, NestorMakhnosLovechild said:

As to whether or not it's going to be used as a "recruitment tool" for terrorists at home and abroad - well, maybe. But I've never been convinced that we should or should not do something based upon whether some person might be able convince someone to shoot a bunch of innocent people because of it. After all, terrorists seem surprisingly capable of coming up with all sorts of justifications for the murder of innocent people. Frankly, if your hypothesis is true. If, in fact, the United States taking a strong stand against allowing people into the country who want to engage in female genital mutilation is so damaging to the psyches of some Muslims that they, based upon that fact, could be convinced to kill a bunch of innocent people. Well, if true, that says something pretty disturbing about some Muslims, no?  

I would say it's very likely to be used as a tool for recruitment. The question is whether or not it would be effective. Also, I feel like there is a gap in your logic here. You're OK with banning certain groups to prevent the possibility of someone coming here who may want to harm gay people, for example, but you're not too worried about the unintended consequence of said banning inspiring people to commit violence? I'd urge you to reconsider that. 

I think it says more about human behavior than it does about Muslims. History is filled with examples of various individuals from groups being inspired to lash out at those they feel are oppressing them, regardless if it's rational behavior or not. 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

25 minutes ago, butterbumps! said:

How many people who hold these (what you're calling "beyond the pale") beliefs seek to come here?   And how many of those who hold these beliefs and come here act on said beliefs?  

Or perhaps even more importantly, how many of those people would be stupid enough to tick the yes box on any of those questions? It's a bad idea on many levels.

[Swordfish]

21 hours ago, Altherion said:

17 hours ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

 

 

[Swordfish]

^^^

 

Ugh.  Sorry.  Quote feature....  being particularly uncooperative today.

[TrackerNeil]

57 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

All it says about me is that I try to factor in everything when making a policy decision, which is what you're taught to do. It's not unreasonable to assume that implementing a ban on certain groups of people could strain relations with our allies and/or exacerbate tensions with unfriendly countries. 

Hear, hear! Policy is difficult and often multi-faceted, and it has to be considered from many angles. What seems morally right may not always be advisable policy.

[The Fallen]

4 hours ago, Dickwad Poster #3784 said:

When you are going to lie about things it bugs me. I get that you specifically want to believe certain things in order to justify your anger at her, but me criticizing you for saying lies does not make it getting bent out of shape.

I've already mentioned several times what flaws Clinton has. I am not claiming that she is a perfect candidate. No candidate is. I am going to fight the perception that she is this incredibly centrist or Republican candidate, because it is not correct. I am going to fight the idea that she has no deeply held values and only changes her mind based on political value, because that is a lie. 

You might be right that this isn't the best tactic to gain her support from you. That is fair but misleading; it assumes that I'm trying to convince you. Sometimes it isn't about that. That being said, what would be a good argument? So far things like fear of trump don't work. Rationally pointing out her policies doesn't work. Pointing out her voting record doesn't work. Pointing out her success in building a coalition doesn't work. When she changes her platform to be more progressive you dismiss it as either pandering or not actually going to happen. When she includes Sanders in the Democratic party plank in the first move of its type ever you say it isn't enough.

So what would sway you? What sways a racist to actually like ethnic minorities?

First, I don't have anger towards Hillary Clinton. Was she my first choice? No. But she won the nomination, and I've already stated I'll be voting for her. I'm merely voicing my opinion.

And I would think that reiterating positive things about Hillary beats calling the opposition delusional.

[Kalbear]

14 minutes ago, The Fallen said:

First, I don't have anger towards Hillary Clinton. Was she my first choice? No. But she won the nomination, and I've already stated I'll be voting for her. I'm merely voicing my opinion.

And I would think that reiterating positive things about Hillary beats calling the opposition delusional.

I can and have done both. If the opposition is delusional shouldn't that also be called out?

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

 Trump Announces Mike Pence as VP Candidate...

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/trump-pence-veep-twitter?utm_source=fark&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link

[The Fallen]

32 minutes ago, Dickwad Poster #3784 said:

I can and have done both. If the opposition is delusional shouldn't that also be called out?

Touché 

[Jace, Extat]

I'm betting that Trump says something to the effect of 'where's the CIA? Where has Obama sent the CIA?' Regarding the events in Turkey.

[BloodRider]

8 hours ago, NestorMakhnosLovechild said:

"Them" = Non-US citizens attempting to enter the US or obtain citizenship who also believe that stoning homosexuals to death is appropriate. 

Glad we cleared that up. Is there a reason we wouldn't want to exclude them? 

I think you are being flippant because I, and others, pointed out exactly what was wrong with your and WWTR's point.  BB said that there were people in country that would not meet your purity test, and WWTR said that we were assholes for comparing USAians to Gay killing Ugandans.  Which is why I posted what I did.

I know we can't easily multi quote, but you really need to follow the thread of what is being discussed, or stop being so lah-di-dah dismissive.  You come across like an ass or so scatterbrained you can't follow the conversation.  I don't think you are that addled, but who knows.

[Kalbear]

Maybe we could just ask if the person would ever consider voting for trump as president. No need to supply reasons. If they answer yes, they don't get to be a citizen or drive a car.

[TrackerNeil]

6 hours ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

 Trump Announces Mike Pence as VP Candidate...

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/trump-pence-veep-twitter?utm_source=fark&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link

The more I think about this, the less sense it makes. Pence isn't very popular in Indiana right now, and in fact the state party was hoping he'd stop running for reelection. (Which he now has.) He managed to tick off the God Squad by backtracking on that "religious liberty" law, and yet did not emerge from the mess looking moderate. He's also not known for exceptional intelligence. I suppose he's the best Trump could do--he won't make things worse--but I suspect that if Rubio or Bush had gotten the nomination, Pence wouldn't be on the ticket.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

52 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said:

The more I think about this, the less sense it makes. Pence isn't very popular in Indiana right now, and in fact the state party was hoping he'd stop running for reelection. (Which he now has.) He managed to tick off the God Squad by backtracking on that "religious liberty" law, and yet did not emerge from the mess looking moderate. He's also not known for exceptional intelligence. I suppose he's the best Trump could do--he won't make things worse--but I suspect that if Rubio or Bush had gotten the nomination, Pence wouldn't be on the ticket.

 The White House started trolling him yesterday.

 http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wh-praises-pence-for-expanding-medicaid-under-obamacare/article/2596522

[ThinkerX]

Regarding Pence, for me the overriding question is:

 

'is Pence sane/competent enough to become president?'  

 

because if he is, and Trump somehow becomes elected, then at some point Trump being Trump WILL do something impeachable, and having somebody relatively sane ready to take over might make the difference as to whether said impeachment actually happens. (better a sane nonentity than an insane Trump. Republican leadership might go along with impeachment in that case.)