Trump: Dawn of the 3rd Party

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by DarkJello, Dec 8, 2015.

  1. StormChasee

    StormChasee The King of Potatoes

    A moderate Muslim has no reason to be offended about a country trying to protect itself from violent members of his religion. The only Muslims we would offend or alienate are those who are already sympathetic to the terrorists' aims. We're not likely to change their minds anyway.
     
    DarkJello likes this.
  2. Geressen

    Geressen Forum Royalty

    kind of like gun owners and gun control then.

    MAH CONSTITUTIONAHL RIHGTS!


    HAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
     
  3. Sokolov

    Sokolov The One True Cactuar Octopi

    Can this argument not be used to justify... almost anything?

    Gun Control?
    Search and Seizures?
    Terror Watchlist with no charges?
    Surveillance?
    Indefinite Detention?
    Torture?
     
    BurnPyro and Geressen like this.
  4. StormChasee

    StormChasee The King of Potatoes

    9-11, Boston, San Bernardino come to mind quickly. Each involve Muslims who came into the country legally and later attacked.

    When I wrote in threads in another forum about the risk of terrorists coming here illegally, one point was often made. What about those who come in legally? They considered that a higher risk. Valid point though it didn't negate the other risk.

    We know or have very good reason to believe that ISIS will try to sneak their people amongst the Syrian refugees for example. A vetting process usually has to have some info to vet against. We have no such database on Syrians. We don't know who these people are. We don't know who is simply trying to get out of Dodge versus who is coming to make trouble. How do we identify a hostile who has operated 'under the radar' and hasn't done anything yet to call attention to themselves?

    Obviously we are not going to get everybody, but can we do things to improve our chances? How safe is safe enough? How good is good enough? An analogy might be useful here. Someone gave you a bowl of grapes and you knew one was poisonous, but didn't know which one. Would you or would you allow your child to eat grapes from that bowl? Given the polls I'm not sure 999 out of 1000 Muslim immigrants are harmless let alone all 1000.

    I found this article doing a google search for Muslim immigrants arrested for terror.
    http://www.andrewbostom.org/2015/11...-to-muslim-immigrants-screening-is-very-poor/

    The article links to other articles (news articles) like the one below documenting such cases.

    http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2015/11/26_terror_plots_in_us_tied_to.html

    "Houston, we have a problem."
     
    DarkJello likes this.
  5. Sokolov

    Sokolov The One True Cactuar Octopi

    That doesn't seem like valid evidence unless you can show that there was something they missed.

    Additionally, I feel there is always going to be some % of chance for a problem - the question is, what % failure rate do you think should be allowed in this process? If the answer is 0%, then we might as well stop accepting ANY immigrants at all, ever again, as there is always some risk.

    It seems to me with all the immigrants that come into the country, that the success rate is already exceptionally high considering how much terrorism goes on in the rest of the world.

    Another followup question is: What could have changed about the vetting process to catch the people in the examples cited before they entered the country?
     
    BurnPyro likes this.
  6. Geressen

    Geressen Forum Royalty

    a better example might be how black nightshade grows as a weed amongst peas and sometimes unripe berries from the nightshade get mixed in with peas, you've not stopped eating peas. but granted often entire harvests are discarded to minimize the risk anyway.

    now let's say we got 10 000 peas and 1 unripe nightshade berry, if you are hungry it's a reasonable chance to take.
     
  7. Sokolov

    Sokolov The One True Cactuar Octopi

    Silly analogy is silly.

    You'd have to show that Muslims have that high of a % chance of being "poisonous" and that this % chance is higher than that of any other thing we are doing. In fact, MANY more things are more dangerous than Muslims are if we are using analogies like this. There is risk in EVERYTHING. You cannot conceivably eliminate all risk.

    For example, if you were born in 2011 (just 4 years ago), you have a 1 in 21 chance of dying in a car accident sometime in your life. BAN ALL CARS!!!!
     
    Geressen and BurnPyro like this.
  8. Sokolov

    Sokolov The One True Cactuar Octopi

    And also, if you (not specify you, but the general you) are pro-guns, and make the argument that "background checks won't help because criminals don't obey laws" then why should increased border security and immigration vetting stop terrorists from coming into the country?
     
    BurnPyro likes this.
  9. StormChasee

    StormChasee The King of Potatoes

    You're groping for a response or jumping to conclusions that don't follow. My context was banning Muslims from immigrating into the country as a measure to protect ourselves from violent Muslims. Maybe I should have stated that for clarity.

    The issues you listed have serious Constitutional issues and in the case of gun control serious effectiveness issues that don't apply. Foreign Muslims have no Constitutional right to come to the US.
     
    DarkJello likes this.
  10. Sokolov

    Sokolov The One True Cactuar Octopi

    I am not groping for anything. I simply point out that the more general case of your argument can be used to justify a lot of things:

    "A moderate <person> has no reason to be offended about a country trying to protect itself from <situation>. The only <person> we would offend or alienate are those who are already sympathetic to the <situation>. We're not likely to change their minds anyway."

    It is the SAME argument that the government uses to justify many, many things, and for that reason I am leery of these types of justifications.

    I disagree. I think the same effectiveness issues apply here.

    Ah, so that's the difference. "Other people" don't have rights. That's always peculiar about the US to me, the idea that other people are lesser somehow. I guess it's why Gitmo exists.

    Also note that currently, the only exception Trump seems to have made is for Muslim American troops serving abroad coming back into the country, but no such exception has been made for Muslim Americans in general - to whom I believe the Constitution would apply.
     
    Last edited: Dec 10, 2015
    DarkJello and BurnPyro like this.
  11. BurnPyro

    BurnPyro Forum Royalty

    A moderate muslim would not be offended if we denied him/her access to the USA based on a select few sharing the same religion?

    I can't imagine they'd be offended whatsoever.
     
  12. StormChasee

    StormChasee The King of Potatoes

    NO this is a risk acceptance analysis. IS the reward of eating grapes worth the risk of the 1 in the bowl being poisonous? Are the rewards of allowing these Muslims into the country worth the risk of some being terrorists and killing fellow Americans or guests? Simple question with a not so simple answer.

    WRT your ban the cars if you want to function in a modern society you need to have to travel and therefore a means of transportation. We have decided the rewards of cars are worth the risk. You cannot avoid some risk since all methods of transportation involve risk.

    WRT immigration we can choose to only accept zero risk. Therefore I don't have to show that the risk Muslim immigrants pose is higher than anything else we do because we can have zero risk. You have to show the risk is acceptable. How many people are you willing to have killed in San Bernardino, Boston and 9-11 type atrocities to allow Muslims to continue immigrating here?
     
    DarkJello likes this.
  13. Sokolov

    Sokolov The One True Cactuar Octopi

    Your original premise was in support of Trump's "pause."

    I ask you, what current problems are there with the process (not just examples of crimes, as that isn't a problem with the process as much as an outcome failure)?

    Note that if the only acceptable risk is zero in this case, then I don't see how that would ever be accomplished thus making the "pause" permanent.

    Additionally, as mentioned, I think the logic behind that argument exists to numerous other arenas and, as you pointed out, such extensions are questionable even by the standards of the US Constitution.

    To put it more generally (because let's face it, immigrants of ALL stripes commit crimes). What changes could have been made (aside from not letting any immigrants in, ever) to prevent legal immigrants from committing crimes? And why just Muslims? If "zero risk" is the goal, then shouldn't the border be PERMANENTLY closed to everyone?

    So, in short, 2 questions:
    • Is "zero risk" the only acceptable threshold?
    • and
    • What changes can be made to the immigration vetting process that would satisfy you enough to "unpause" immigration of Muslims?
      • i.e. as I asked originally, what exactly is wrong with the correct process?
     
    Last edited: Dec 10, 2015
    BurnPyro likes this.
  14. StormChasee

    StormChasee The King of Potatoes

    Whoa there cowboy!

    Are you seriously arguing that foreigners have the categorical right to immigrate to the US or any other country? They have the right to seek immigration. There is a difference. In the former we have to accept them. In the latter we can say no.

    Trump's idea doesn't apply to American citizens Muslim or not because they are not immigrating when they return. They're simply travelling.
     
    DarkJello likes this.
  15. Sokolov

    Sokolov The One True Cactuar Octopi

    No, I never said such a thing.

    1. Except what Trump initially said was "a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States" without qualification
      • maybe he MEANT immigrating, but as far as I know, he used entering on purpose and hasn't clarified
    2. An aide had also confirmed that it applies to Tourists (i.e. not just immigration)
    3. Why make the exception for American Troops who happen to be Muslims then? they aren't immigrating either
    EDIT: I did find that Trump clarified later on ABC that his idea does not apply to American citizens (call it clarification or backtracking after criticism)
     
    BurnPyro and DarkJello like this.
  16. Sokolov

    Sokolov The One True Cactuar Octopi

    Anyway, getting way off track I think.

    My original question was, and still is the following.

    If we go with the assumption that something needs to be fixed and that we pause until it is fixed:

    What needs to be fixed and how? At what point can we "unpause?"

    (I just realized this is similar to the questions asked about Iraq and such, "When is the job done?")
     
    BurnPyro and DarkJello like this.
  17. StormChasee

    StormChasee The King of Potatoes

    Good things are more responsive now. Before it was taking 5 seconds for one character I typed to show.

    AN outcome failure suggests there is a problem somewhere either in the process or in the execution of the process. It needs to be looked at. It's like my car normally gets 50mpg and is now only getting 30 mpg. There is an outcome failure and therefore a problem, but I'm not a mechanic. So I take the car to the mechanic and see if he can find the problem and fix it. Same thing here. There is an outcome failure that needs analysis. I wish I had the answer, but I don't. The fact I don't have a solution doesn't preclude me from seeing there is a problem that needs to be fixed or at least looked at to see if there is a better way. I bet there's a lot of people who can see problems, but have no idea how to fix them.

    Is zero risk the only acceptable threshold? I didn't claim that. I claim that we can have that in this case unlike with transportation. Truthfully I'm not sure what my no-kidding threshold is. Given the results of the Pew research, other polls of Muslims abroad I've seen in the past and the recent history of attacks both here and abroad, that threshold is closer to zero than to what we're experiencing.

    Sokolov, I don't know where you got Trump's 'initial' statement, but what I saw was he wanted a pause in Muslim immigration until the process could be fixed. That was the idea I didn't think was as bad an idea as people were saying. When there's a claim of someone saying something outlandish, I prefer to see the clip and make that assessment for myself. Frankly from the clip I saw, his statement did not deserve the harsh reaction he got.
     
    DarkJello likes this.
  18. Sokolov

    Sokolov The One True Cactuar Octopi


    The quote can be found on his website:
    https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-...mp-statement-on-preventing-muslim-immigration

    "Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on. "

    Additionally:

    "Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski told CNN on Monday that the ban would apply not just to Muslim foreigners looking to immigrate to the U.S., but also to Muslims looking to visit the U.S. as tourists.

    "Everyone," Lewandowski said when asked if the ban would also apply to Muslim tourists."

    Source: http://edition.cnn.com/2015/12/07/politics/donald-trump-muslim-ban-immigration/
     
    Last edited: Dec 10, 2015
    BurnPyro and DarkJello like this.
  19. Sokolov

    Sokolov The One True Cactuar Octopi

    So I was asking 2 different questions.

    First, I asked what exactly needs to be fixed? Which you have provided the answer - you don't know. Which is perfectly reasonable.

    However, my second question is:

    What is the criteria for the thing BEING fixed?

    I think that if you are going to make the an argument for putting in a stop-gap solution like this - you have to be able to answer ONE of those 2 questions because otherwise the solution is no longer a stop-gap. It is indefinite. This is the problem with a TON of legislation and government solutions - the lack of a concrete plan or measurable results.

    You don't bring your car to the mechanic going "I don't know what's wrong, and I don't know what counts as fixing it, but we should probably do something." I suppose you can, but that's kind of like writing like a blank check to the mechanic, I think.

    In your example, you would ask that the mechanic fix the car so it does get its 50 MPG it normally is. That is an answer to question 2 - the criteria for the problem being fixed.

    Thus, in Trump (or your) case with Muslim immigration. What is the criteria for it being fixed?

    ~

    Also, and I don't mean to de-rail too much with this, but I assume you were pro-ObamaCare in theory then, on the basis that Healthcare Costs are a problem and we should try and do something about it?
     
    Last edited: Dec 10, 2015
    BurnPyro likes this.
  20. StormChasee

    StormChasee The King of Potatoes

    Congress has authority over immigration policy. So when they determine the process has been improved so the risk will be reduced to an acceptable level defined by Congress then they can take off the pause. Then only time will determine whether the risk was reduced to the acceptable level. (I recognize that if we stop Muslim immigration tomorrow, that would not stop any Muslim terrorists who immigrated earlier from attacking.)

    Which brings me to my outstanding question to you; how many Americans and guests murdered by Islamic terrorists who immigrated here is an acceptable risk. Simple question, but not a easy answer and truthfully I'm not sure my own answer. We need to answer to that question. Is a San Bernardino type attack a year or every few years an acceptable risk?

    Earlier you mentioned the criminal risk every group of immigrants pose and that's true. Every group has that risk and that is not unique to any group. The present level of terrorist risk does seem to be unique to Muslims so therefore it is proper to subject Muslims to greater scrutiny.
     

Share This Page