The General Political Thread

[Furrnox]

I find it hard to understand that someone from Sweden thinks leaving the EU is a good idea.

I was being ironic.

[Gluk the Walrus]

Spoiler

Maybe if you started using rational thought in response to knee jerk emotional reaction you'd have more success bringing people to your cause, lol.
The rise of right wing populism is due to the rise of the social democratic left, and it's perceived power in society.

In my eyes, the rise of right wing populism is based on xenophobia, bigotry and racism. My response is not really a knee jerk reaction, its literally trump in the US, UKIP and others with Brexit and now other european nations. The central theme seems to be to keep out foreigners...

You can say that it's a response to the left and in some ways that may be true but the more likely case is that some folks became scared of people who look different.

I wonder why Merkel hates Germany so much

Maybe because Germany hates Germany.

It almost seems too easy for leftists to blame racism and bigotry to detract from their own failings.

Whose failings exactly? Mine? That of the neo-liberal establishment before trump? SJWs? I'm not a neo-liberal and i don't really identify much with the cause of identity politics (ie: SJWs).

[close]

Hold on there, you just activated my trap card, "Check yourself before you rek yourself". When an opponent tries to distance themselves from identity politics, remind them that they blamed the rise of the populist right on racism and xenophobia, which is basically identity politics.

It also allows me to draw 2 more cards.

What i mean by "not identifying much with the cause of identity politics" is that i see it as less important than classism. Even though others may disagree with feminists, the concept of 'privilege' still exists. To what extent it exists is what is debated. I'll use an example, there is a homeless white man and a rich black trans woman, who has more privilege? The rich black trans woman because classism is more important than your identity. This is what i mean when i say that i don't identify as much with identity politics.

However that being said, i'm not going to ignore identity politics when it is relevant, such as the case with Donald Trump. The Muslim ban is racist, it's targeting a specific group of people with a specific religion different to ours. The ban contradicts itself because saudi arabia is mysteriously nowhere to be found on the list (15 of the 19 planners of 9/11 were saudis) while Iraq which has never caused a single terror attack against the united states just so happens to be on the list.

This CNN article does a great job breaking down the stupidity of the Muslim ban,
http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/29/us/refugee-terrorism-trnd/

If you don't feel like reading it, i'll post the relevent parts,

San Bernardino attacks
Farook, 28, was an American citizen born in Chicago. Malik, 29, was born and raised in Pakistan, and later lived in Saudi Arabia. (Pakistan is also not on the ban)

New York and New Jersey explosions
Rahimi was born in Afghanistan and first came to the United States in 1995. Rahimi became a naturalized US citizen in 2011. (Afghanistan is also not on the ban)

Orlando Pulse nightclub shooting
Omar Mateen, was an American citizen living in Fort Pierce, Florida. He was born in New York, and his parents were from Afghanistan.

Boston Marathon bombings
Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev were born in Kyrgyzstan to parents originally from war-torn Chechnya. (Kyrgyzstan is not on the ban)

World Trade Center, September 11, 2001
Of the 19 people who hijacked four planes on September 11, 2001, 15 of them hailed from Saudi Arabia. Two were from the United Arab Emirates, one was from Egypt, and one was from Lebanon.
(none of these countries are on the ban)

[AP0CALYPS3]

Spoiler

Maybe if you started using rational thought in response to knee jerk emotional reaction you'd have more success bringing people to your cause, lol.
The rise of right wing populism is due to the rise of the social democratic left, and it's perceived power in society.

In my eyes, the rise of right wing populism is based on xenophobia, bigotry and racism. My response is not really a knee jerk reaction, its literally trump in the US, UKIP and others with Brexit and now other european nations. The central theme seems to be to keep out foreigners...

You can say that it's a response to the left and in some ways that may be true but the more likely case is that some folks became scared of people who look different.

I wonder why Merkel hates Germany so much

Maybe because Germany hates Germany.

It almost seems too easy for leftists to blame racism and bigotry to detract from their own failings.

Whose failings exactly? Mine? That of the neo-liberal establishment before trump? SJWs? I'm not a neo-liberal and i don't really identify much with the cause of identity politics (ie: SJWs).

[close]

Hold on there, you just activated my trap card, "Check yourself before you rek yourself". When an opponent tries to distance themselves from identity politics, remind them that they blamed the rise of the populist right on racism and xenophobia, which is basically identity politics.

It also allows me to draw 2 more cards.

What i mean by "not identifying much with the cause of identity politics" is that i see it as less important than classism. Even though others may disagree with feminists, the concept of 'privilege' still exists. To what extent it exists is what is debated. I'll use an example, there is a homeless white man and a rich black trans woman, who has more privilege? The rich black trans woman because classism is more important than your identity. This is what i mean when i say that i don't identify as much with identity politics.

However that being said, i'm not going to ignore identity politics when it is relevant, such as the case with Donald Trump. The Muslim ban is racist, it's targeting a specific group of people with a specific religion different to ours. The ban contradicts itself because saudi arabia is mysteriously nowhere to be found on the list (15 of the 19 planners of 9/11 were saudis) while Iraq which has never caused a single terror attack against the united states just so happens to be on the list.

You could've ended it after your first paragraph and I would have been more or less like "Fair Enough", even though you never explained why everyone (especially the working class you communists love) suddenly decided to be xenophobic and racist. But then ya fucked up.

Your first mistake is CNN

Your second mistake is that Islam is not a race, therefore it literally cannot be racist. For example, if I were to found a Death Cult in which we worshipped Shia Labeouf and partook in Human Sacrifices, and our religion was subsequently banned from the United States, it wouldn't be racist as we would be a religion not a race. I'm guessing when you say Muslim you mean Arabs, but referring to Arabs as Muslims is far from politically correct to the point it could actually be racist, as you are saying that all Arabs are Muslim, and nobody else besides Arabs can be muslim.

Your third mistake is saying that it is a Muslim Ban, which it's not. Referring to it as a Muslim ban is purposefully misleading in a number of ways. The first of which, you make it sound like Islam itself is banned in the United States, which it is definitely not. Secondly, it is a ban on a number of countries identified by the Obama Administration as sources of terror. My guess is that the list was compiled by data from Terror attacks around the world, and not just America, so the nationality of terrorists who have committed terror attacks on American soil might not necessarily reflect the nationality of a majority of terrorists worldwide. But of course, I know the left likes to shy away from statistics and data when it comes to Terrorism.

Your last mistake is bringing up the nationalities of the terrorists from countries we haven't banned, and I am still not entirely sure why the hell you would do that. Are you trying to argue that we should ban more countries? Bringing them up is literally an argument to ban MORE countries. It is definitely not an argument against the ban. You call it the ban contradicting itself, I call it Trump being soft. It shocks me that you wanted him to be tougher.

Conclusion: Even "when relevant", Identity Politics is still stupid.

I will then play two cards face down and end my turn.

[Theodin]

You wanna actually play Yugi-oh or something

[Gluk the Walrus]

Spoiler

Maybe if you started using rational thought in response to knee jerk emotional reaction you'd have more success bringing people to your cause, lol.
The rise of right wing populism is due to the rise of the social democratic left, and it's perceived power in society.

In my eyes, the rise of right wing populism is based on xenophobia, bigotry and racism. My response is not really a knee jerk reaction, its literally trump in the US, UKIP and others with Brexit and now other european nations. The central theme seems to be to keep out foreigners...

You can say that it's a response to the left and in some ways that may be true but the more likely case is that some folks became scared of people who look different.

I wonder why Merkel hates Germany so much

Maybe because Germany hates Germany.

It almost seems too easy for leftists to blame racism and bigotry to detract from their own failings.

Whose failings exactly? Mine? That of the neo-liberal establishment before trump? SJWs? I'm not a neo-liberal and i don't really identify much with the cause of identity politics (ie: SJWs).

[close]

Hold on there, you just activated my trap card, "Check yourself before you rek yourself". When an opponent tries to distance themselves from identity politics, remind them that they blamed the rise of the populist right on racism and xenophobia, which is basically identity politics.

It also allows me to draw 2 more cards.

What i mean by "not identifying much with the cause of identity politics" is that i see it as less important than classism. Even though others may disagree with feminists, the concept of 'privilege' still exists. To what extent it exists is what is debated. I'll use an example, there is a homeless white man and a rich black trans woman, who has more privilege? The rich black trans woman because classism is more important than your identity. This is what i mean when i say that i don't identify as much with identity politics.

However that being said, i'm not going to ignore identity politics when it is relevant, such as the case with Donald Trump. The Muslim ban is racist, it's targeting a specific group of people with a specific religion different to ours. The ban contradicts itself because saudi arabia is mysteriously nowhere to be found on the list (15 of the 19 planners of 9/11 were saudis) while Iraq which has never caused a single terror attack against the united states just so happens to be on the list.

You could've ended it after your first paragraph and I would have been more or less like "Fair Enough", even though you never explained why everyone (especially the working class you communists love) suddenly decided to be xenophobic and racist. But then ya fucked up.

Your first mistake is CNN

Your second mistake is that Islam is not a race, therefore it literally cannot be racist. For example, if I were to found a Death Cult in which we worshipped Shia Labeouf and partook in Human Sacrifices, and our religion was subsequently banned from the United States, it wouldn't be racist as we would be a religion not a race. I'm guessing when you say Muslim you mean Arabs, but referring to Arabs as Muslims is far from politically correct to the point it could actually be racist, as you are saying that all Arabs are Muslim, and nobody else besides Arabs can be muslim.

Your third mistake is saying that it is a Muslim Ban, which it's not. Referring to it as a Muslim ban is purposefully misleading in a number of ways. The first of which, you make it sound like Islam itself is banned in the United States, which it is definitely not. Secondly, it is a ban on a number of countries identified by the Obama Administration as sources of terror. My guess is that the list was compiled by data from Terror attacks around the world, and not just America, so the nationality of terrorists who have committed terror attacks on American soil might not necessarily reflect the nationality of a majority of terrorists worldwide. But of course, I know the left likes to shy away from statistics and data when it comes to Terrorism.

Your last mistake is bringing up the nationalities of the terrorists from countries we haven't banned, and I am still not entirely sure why the hell you would do that. Are you trying to argue that we should ban more countries? Bringing them up is literally an argument to ban MORE countries. It is definitely not an argument against the ban. You call it the ban contradicting itself, I call it Trump being soft. It shocks me that you wanted him to be tougher.

Conclusion: Even "when relevant", Identity Politics is still stupid.

I will then play two cards face down and end my turn.

I'm attacking you directly for 500 lifepoints.

Spoiler

You could've ended it after your first paragraph and I would have been more or less like "Fair Enough", even though you never explained why everyone (especially the working class you communists love) suddenly decided to be xenophobic and racist. But then ya fucked up.

[close]

I know this isn't super relevent to our discussion but it's worth noting that a majority of the working class did not vote for trump. 241 million people can vote. Cut out 1 million for the bougie folks, trump got about 62 million votes. That's about 38%. I know my math is off a bit but that's a general area of the percentage.

Spoiler

Your first mistake is CNN

[close]

wot

Spoiler

Your second mistake is that Islam is not a race, therefore it literally cannot be racist. For example, if I were to found a Death Cult in which we worshipped Shia Labeouf and partook in Human Sacrifices, and our religion was subsequently banned from the United States, it wouldn't be racist as we would be a religion not a race. I'm guessing when you say Muslim you mean Arabs, but referring to Arabs as Muslims is far from politically correct to the point it could actually be racist, as you are saying that all Arabs are Muslim, and nobody else besides Arabs can be muslim.

[close]

I get that Islam is not a race...however the predominate population within the banned countries are Arab Muslims. It is racist because it is targeting people of a particular race that just so happens to have their own dominate religion. So he's not JUST racist, he's also Islamophobic and Xenophobic. I hate having to throw these words around because i don't think that form of disourse is particularly effective but in the case of Trump where is so blatant, so obvious, it's honestly disgusting, I make the exception because I genuinely believe it's true.

Spoiler

Your third mistake is saying that it is a Muslim Ban, which it's not. Referring to it as a Muslim ban is purposefully misleading in a number of ways. The first of which, you make it sound like Islam itself is banned in the United States, which it is definitely not. Secondly, it is a ban on a number of countries identified by the Obama Administration as sources of terror. My guess is that the list was compiled by data from Terror attacks around the world, and not just America, so the nationality of terrorists who have committed terror attacks on American soil might not necessarily reflect the nationality of a majority of terrorists worldwide. But of course, I know the left likes to shy away from statistics and data when it comes to Terrorism.

[close]

I call it a Muslim ban because it's mostly Arab Muslims who are being banned...maybe it's misleading, but whatever. Okay, so it's about terror statistics then...what exactly are we scared of? A terror attack that we have no evidence will happen? These "terror" attacks are mostly happening on their own soil because they are in active civil wars which we are at least partially responsible for.

Spoiler

Your last mistake is bringing up the nationalities of the terrorists from countries we haven't banned, and I am still not entirely sure why the hell you would do that. Are you trying to argue that we should ban more countries? Bringing them up is literally an argument to ban MORE countries. It is definitely not an argument against the ban. You call it the ban contradicting itself, I call it Trump being soft. It shocks me that you wanted him to be tougher.

[close]

The point of the ban is to protect AMERICANS. So it's relevant to bring up evidence that suggest certain people of certain nationalities may be more harmful than others, hints the nationalities of prior attacks. If we were to go by that logic, saudi arabia seems very unfriendly towards americans and should really be at the top of trump's list. I am in no way advocating a larger ban or any ban at all, i'm simply pointing out that this ban is pointless...it serves no purpose if he cannot provide any evidence that the nations or people within the nations that he banned had any reason to attack us which he cannot provide.

[BabyJesus]

The Muslim ban was poorly planned and will be ineffective

[Ted]

[Ted]

Sorry for the doublepost, but it's just great

[Edwin]

Sorry for the doublepost, but it's just great

Video game sucks, they don't even mention destroying Europe with two wars 

[Brave Sir Charge]

Sorry for the doublepost, but it's just great

Meh.

[Duuring]

Six weeks to the election and still the polls show little change. Every now and again a party drops one or two seats and another raises, but nothing major. PVV shows a declining line but is still leading.

[Cara]

God again american politics even here 

For us, the right favorite is bursting into flames, due to his english wife, it's kinda funny

[Duuring]

Why do French Elections always seem to be solely about personal issues?

[AP0CALYPS3]

Spoiler

Maybe if you started using rational thought in response to knee jerk emotional reaction you'd have more success bringing people to your cause, lol.
The rise of right wing populism is due to the rise of the social democratic left, and it's perceived power in society.

In my eyes, the rise of right wing populism is based on xenophobia, bigotry and racism. My response is not really a knee jerk reaction, its literally trump in the US, UKIP and others with Brexit and now other european nations. The central theme seems to be to keep out foreigners...

You can say that it's a response to the left and in some ways that may be true but the more likely case is that some folks became scared of people who look different.

I wonder why Merkel hates Germany so much

Maybe because Germany hates Germany.

It almost seems too easy for leftists to blame racism and bigotry to detract from their own failings.

Whose failings exactly? Mine? That of the neo-liberal establishment before trump? SJWs? I'm not a neo-liberal and i don't really identify much with the cause of identity politics (ie: SJWs).

[close]

Hold on there, you just activated my trap card, "Check yourself before you rek yourself". When an opponent tries to distance themselves from identity politics, remind them that they blamed the rise of the populist right on racism and xenophobia, which is basically identity politics.

It also allows me to draw 2 more cards.

What i mean by "not identifying much with the cause of identity politics" is that i see it as less important than classism. Even though others may disagree with feminists, the concept of 'privilege' still exists. To what extent it exists is what is debated. I'll use an example, there is a homeless white man and a rich black trans woman, who has more privilege? The rich black trans woman because classism is more important than your identity. This is what i mean when i say that i don't identify as much with identity politics.

However that being said, i'm not going to ignore identity politics when it is relevant, such as the case with Donald Trump. The Muslim ban is racist, it's targeting a specific group of people with a specific religion different to ours. The ban contradicts itself because saudi arabia is mysteriously nowhere to be found on the list (15 of the 19 planners of 9/11 were saudis) while Iraq which has never caused a single terror attack against the united states just so happens to be on the list.

You could've ended it after your first paragraph and I would have been more or less like "Fair Enough", even though you never explained why everyone (especially the working class you communists love) suddenly decided to be xenophobic and racist. But then ya fucked up.

Your first mistake is CNN

Your second mistake is that Islam is not a race, therefore it literally cannot be racist. For example, if I were to found a Death Cult in which we worshipped Shia Labeouf and partook in Human Sacrifices, and our religion was subsequently banned from the United States, it wouldn't be racist as we would be a religion not a race. I'm guessing when you say Muslim you mean Arabs, but referring to Arabs as Muslims is far from politically correct to the point it could actually be racist, as you are saying that all Arabs are Muslim, and nobody else besides Arabs can be muslim.

Your third mistake is saying that it is a Muslim Ban, which it's not. Referring to it as a Muslim ban is purposefully misleading in a number of ways. The first of which, you make it sound like Islam itself is banned in the United States, which it is definitely not. Secondly, it is a ban on a number of countries identified by the Obama Administration as sources of terror. My guess is that the list was compiled by data from Terror attacks around the world, and not just America, so the nationality of terrorists who have committed terror attacks on American soil might not necessarily reflect the nationality of a majority of terrorists worldwide. But of course, I know the left likes to shy away from statistics and data when it comes to Terrorism.

Your last mistake is bringing up the nationalities of the terrorists from countries we haven't banned, and I am still not entirely sure why the hell you would do that. Are you trying to argue that we should ban more countries? Bringing them up is literally an argument to ban MORE countries. It is definitely not an argument against the ban. You call it the ban contradicting itself, I call it Trump being soft. It shocks me that you wanted him to be tougher.

Conclusion: Even "when relevant", Identity Politics is still stupid.

I will then play two cards face down and end my turn.

Spoiler

I'm attacking you directly for 500 lifepoints.

Spoiler

You could've ended it after your first paragraph and I would have been more or less like "Fair Enough", even though you never explained why everyone (especially the working class you communists love) suddenly decided to be xenophobic and racist. But then ya fucked up.

[close]

I know this isn't super relevent to our discussion but it's worth noting that a majority of the working class did not vote for trump. 241 million people can vote. Cut out 1 million for the bougie folks, trump got about 62 million votes. That's about 38%. I know my math is off a bit but that's a general area of the percentage.

Spoiler

Your first mistake is CNN

[close]

wot

Spoiler

Your second mistake is that Islam is not a race, therefore it literally cannot be racist. For example, if I were to found a Death Cult in which we worshipped Shia Labeouf and partook in Human Sacrifices, and our religion was subsequently banned from the United States, it wouldn't be racist as we would be a religion not a race. I'm guessing when you say Muslim you mean Arabs, but referring to Arabs as Muslims is far from politically correct to the point it could actually be racist, as you are saying that all Arabs are Muslim, and nobody else besides Arabs can be muslim.

[close]

I get that Islam is not a race...however the predominate population within the banned countries are Arab Muslims. It is racist because it is targeting people of a particular race that just so happens to have their own dominate religion. So he's not JUST racist, he's also Islamophobic and Xenophobic. I hate having to throw these words around because i don't think that form of disourse is particularly effective but in the case of Trump where is so blatant, so obvious, it's honestly disgusting, I make the exception because I genuinely believe it's true.

Spoiler

Your third mistake is saying that it is a Muslim Ban, which it's not. Referring to it as a Muslim ban is purposefully misleading in a number of ways. The first of which, you make it sound like Islam itself is banned in the United States, which it is definitely not. Secondly, it is a ban on a number of countries identified by the Obama Administration as sources of terror. My guess is that the list was compiled by data from Terror attacks around the world, and not just America, so the nationality of terrorists who have committed terror attacks on American soil might not necessarily reflect the nationality of a majority of terrorists worldwide. But of course, I know the left likes to shy away from statistics and data when it comes to Terrorism.

[close]

I call it a Muslim ban because it's mostly Arab Muslims who are being banned...maybe it's misleading, but whatever. Okay, so it's about terror statistics then...what exactly are we scared of? A terror attack that we have no evidence will happen? These "terror" attacks are mostly happening on their own soil because they are in active civil wars which we are at least partially responsible for.

Spoiler

Your last mistake is bringing up the nationalities of the terrorists from countries we haven't banned, and I am still not entirely sure why the hell you would do that. Are you trying to argue that we should ban more countries? Bringing them up is literally an argument to ban MORE countries. It is definitely not an argument against the ban. You call it the ban contradicting itself, I call it Trump being soft. It shocks me that you wanted him to be tougher.

[close]

The point of the ban is to protect AMERICANS. So it's relevant to bring up evidence that suggest certain people of certain nationalities may be more harmful than others, hints the nationalities of prior attacks. If we were to go by that logic, saudi arabia seems very unfriendly towards americans and should really be at the top of trump's list. I am in no way advocating a larger ban or any ban at all, i'm simply pointing out that this ban is pointless...it serves no purpose if he cannot provide any evidence that the nations or people within the nations that he banned had any reason to attack us which he cannot provide.

[close]

Shame I had in defense mode. Aint getting past that.

Well first off you are basing your percentage on the entire eligible voting population in the US, and not the ones that actually voted which was about ~58% iirc. The reason I say its the working class that is who you are throwing your identity politics at, is because its mostly true. Alot of facts thrown around by leftists right after the election was all about how those with college degrees/masters degrees voted for Hillary. Now, I dunno what your picture of a "bougie", but when I think bougie I think someone sitting in a nice house with a college degree hanging on his/her door. Those people voted for Hillary. Your famous actors and such who have not really contributed alot to society, also voted for Hillary overwhelmingly. When I think of the proletariat, I think of the lower/middle class, as I see them as the working men/women of America. Its funny, because when you ask a leftists (and even you yourself are kind of perpetuating this), what they think a Trump supporter is, they are likely to respond that they are rednecks among with a whole list of "phobics" and "ists". But the thing with Rednecks, is no matter how many "phobics" and "ists" you throw at them, they are the lower/middle class of America. There is your proleteriate tbh. I see it odd that a Communist would hate the basis of his movement really. Afterall, Communism is really intended to be a populist movement, a movement by the majority to take back their livelihood from the few.

Spoiler

wot

[close]

Spoiler

I get that Islam is not a race...however the predominate population within the banned countries are Arab Muslims. It is racist because it is targeting people of a particular race that just so happens to have their own dominate religion. So he's not JUST racist, he's also Islamophobic and Xenophobic. I hate having to throw these words around because i don't think that form of disourse is particularly effective but in the case of Trump where is so blatant, so obvious, it's honestly disgusting, I make the exception because I genuinely believe it's true.

[close]

Thats ridiculous. You are alleging it as something its not. Arabs are still allowed in America. Muslims are still allowed in America. Its a ban on nations, not races or even religions. If every German suddenly became a Nazi, and I mean a heiling, book burning, jew hunting Nazi, and we banned travel from Germany due to fear from far right terrorists or whatever, it wouldn't be racist because most of them are White. You are saying its something its not. Its also not "Christianophobic" or whatever you would call that, even though they are mostly Christian. The only argument you have grounds for is that it is Xenophobic, but if it was truly xenophobic we would just shut down travel with ALL other countries. A phobia is an unreasonable fear of a particular thing, with Xenophobia being an irrational fear of foreigners. However, you know its not that. It is quite reasonable to bar travel from those countries as it is dangerous. It could only be 1 and 1000, or even 10000 is a terrorist, but those still are not very good odds and why take the risk when you...literally don't have to. Nations are not obliged to have free movement of people.

Spoiler

I call it a Muslim ban because it's mostly Arab Muslims who are being banned...maybe it's misleading, but whatever. Okay, so it's about terror statistics then...what exactly are we scared of? A terror attack that we have no evidence will happen? These "terror" attacks are mostly happening on their own soil because they are in active civil wars which we are at least partially responsible for.

[close]

I will just call it a Terrorist ban then, because that is more accurate to its purpose and than calling it a Muslim ban.

You see, the best terror attack is a terror attack that never happened. If we can prevent just one terrorist from entering the United States with this ban, then it will have been a success in my eyes as that could be the lives of 30 or more Americans saved. The President's job is to keep Americans safe. If he can accomplish that by having a travel ban on those countries, then I see absolutely nothing wrong with it. If in the future we can reach out and help people in the Middle East WITHOUT endangering Americans, then I see no reason why we should not do that. However, the safety of Americans comes first, especially in the eyes of the president.

Spoiler

The point of the ban is to protect AMERICANS. So it's relevant to bring up evidence that suggest certain people of certain nationalities may be more harmful than others, hints the nationalities of prior attacks. If we were to go by that logic, saudi arabia seems very unfriendly towards americans and should really be at the top of trump's list. I am in no way advocating a larger ban or any ban at all, i'm simply pointing out that this ban is pointless...it serves no purpose if he cannot provide any evidence that the nations or people within the nations that he banned had any reason to attack us which he cannot provide.

[close]

You are being ridiculous. Terrorists don't need more reason to attack us, other than that we don't agree with them. That is what terrorism is, Political Persuasion through Terror. If their goal is to convert us to Islam, or particularly their particular view of Islam, then they would try to scare us into thinking it is not worth being anything but their particular view of Islam. That is why the primary victims of Terrorists...are other Muslims. You would think that a Muslim has not given a terrorist any reason to attack him, other than that they slightly disagree, but that is enough justification for them. Just because YOU don't think they have a reason to attack Americans, doesn't mean they think that. Actually, on second thought, you blamed the state of the Middleast on us, which I would say is reason enough for them, meaning that we probably are high up on the list of targets.

Here's the thing though. The only reason I can think of for why those countries are not banned, is that they are going off of terror statistics worldwide and found those countries to be low enough to be considered somewhat safe, which makes sense to me. However, if you think I am going to argue for why they shouldn't be banned, you would be incredibly wrong. The easiest fix to the "contradiction" you are pointing out is to just ban those countries. I am for it. Easy as that. That is why I say its a weird argument to bring, as you could present those facts you are listing as an argument to ban more countries, not less.

[Cara]

Why do French Elections always seem to be solely about personal issues?

The exercice of the Présidence de la République by some strong men with charisma and strong personality (From De Gaulle to Mitterrand) made this office very personnal. So this election is mostly a referendum on a person (as it was for Napoleon I and III) more than a party or a program thing.