World is Falling Apart Thread (Locked forever)

[marurun]

The bill Obama allowed to pass is far less restrictive (and much less likely to be unconstitutional), but it is still a bad idea. As the article notes, it appears to have been security theater, a knee-jerk response to the San Bernadino shooting, despite the shooters being not at all connected to the nations listed. I am against it, and the ACLU was also appropriately opposed to it.

Trump's extension of this logic is also wrong, and far more restrictive, and highly likely to be blatantly unconstitutional.

I very much like Obama, but I disagreed with many of his policies, like continuation of the TSA, poor government transparency, and lack of whistleblower protections. I am sure there are many others that slipped by, like this law, because I was simply not so worried about the state of the US. It is a trade off. I am still happy with the compromise that was the Obama presidency. Just as I am so far appalled with the Trump presidency.

[Erik_Twice]

CRT your propoganda techniques will not succeed on this forum. No one is cheering you on in the distance.

They will, just not in the way you think they do.

What I've seen in other forums it thatspammers like CRT drive away people who want to have a conversation because they monopolize the thread. All those long articles, weblinks and pictures are not mistakes, they are way to take up space so you are forced to slog through it. Open questions, hateful remarks and similar rethorical devices bait people into answering to the spammer, making even more of the thread about him and his garbage.

When that doesn't work, the spammer simply resorts to posting several times per page so you can't ignore him.

I'll be honest, CRT should be banned from this thread. I doubt anyone appreciates his contributions here, specially those that are but dog-whistles for bigots (America first, LGTB people are the "haters", etc.).

I really urge the mods to consider what they are allowing to fester here and what kind people they are driving away by allowing him to post his nonsense. Remember when most of the gay people of the forums left? This is a worse version of that.

[Sarge]

Yeah, not on board with banning. As I've said before, just ignore it. The length of posts makes them easy to skip, anyway.

While one can certainly disagree with Trump's move regarding refugees, it's not nearly as bad as it's being represented in some quarters. It's a significant step back from his position back in 2015. And it's not without precedent, either, both the suspension and the reduction in number to align with the historical mean.

[marurun]

That doesnt make it legal, however. The 1965 law seems pretty straightforward to me.

[Ack]

Yeah, not on board with banning. As I've said before, just ignore it. The length of posts makes them easy to skip, anyway.

While one can certainly disagree with Trump's move regarding refugees, it's not nearly as bad as it's being represented in some quarters. It's a significant step back from his position back in 2015. And it's not without precedent, either, both the suspension and the reduction in number to align with the historical mean.

That doesn't mean the precedent is a good one though. Yes, we have limited or banned nations from allowing individuals to emigrate to the US before, such as the Chinese Exclusion Act. And in these cases we have seen several issues rise:

1. The root cause that was the actual problem(either economic or security) was not actually addressed by the ban.

2. The ban became a useful tool for propagandists opposed to the US, particularly the Soviet Union and China, and ultimately served to make us look bad in the eyes of the world.

3. The bans actually ended up hurting both our credibility as well as our economic trading with other nations, particularly the nations in question, which enabled and emboldened other major powers to move in.

[jp1]

Yeah, not on board with banning. As I've said before, just ignore it. The length of posts makes them easy to skip, anyway.

While one can certainly disagree with Trump's move regarding refugees, it's not nearly as bad as it's being represented in some quarters. It's a significant step back from his position back in 2015. And it's not without precedent, either, both the suspension and the reduction in number to align with the historical mean.

So, does this mean you agree with it? How would you like to be held accountable for the actions of some misguided Christians? Christianity has a history of violence and a continuing legacy of violence that is at the very least comparable with that of the Muslims. Actions of the few do not warrant knee jerk reactions against the many.

Many supremacist groups rely on Christianity to rally their "cause". Does that mean that you should be associated with them? Like it or not you pray at an altar rooted in bloodshed. You and I know there is more to it than that, but to an outsider what is the real difference? This is the judgment being passed on peaceful Muslims because of the actions of some radical groups. How do you justify this?

Matthew 5:44
Matthew 7:1-6
Luke 23:32-43
Peter 3:8-11

[Blu]

While one can certainly disagree with Trump's move regarding refugees, it's not nearly as bad as it's being represented in some quarters. It's a significant step back from his position back in 2015. And it's not without precedent, either, both the suspension and the reduction in number to align with the historical mean.

It doesn't mean that precedent itself is unconstitutional. Chinese Exclusion Act, Japanese Internment, etc are all clear examples of not solving the root causes as were mentioned. People with valid green cards are being turned away. I'm in agreement with ZeroAX and Marurun that this only diminishes our credibility in the eyes of the world. It will impact diplomatic relations, and especially trade, since he's the jobs president right? Seems like Trump has no clue on this one. I suspect Bannon is truly pulling the strings, not Pence.

Doesn't matter if he's walking back on the rhetoric. So far, a lot that he walked back reared its head once more and became executive orders. The true culprits are Congress, who it appears have no idea what they should be legislating. Ryan and McConnel looked clueless telling the press what was going on with the wall. I say let them squirm then vote them out.

[MrPopo]

Doesn't matter if he's walking back on the rhetoric. So far, a lot that he walked back reared its head once more and became executive orders. The true culprits are Congress, who it appears have no idea what they should be legislating. Ryan and McConnel looked clueless telling the press what was going on with the wall. I say let them squirm then vote them out.

I think they realize that if they start fighting with the President that's going to do bad things to the unity of the Republican party. How often in our history have we had the Executive and Legislative branches controlled by the same party and then not get along (honest question for the history buffs, I don't have an answer for this one).

[Sarge]

So, does this mean you agree with it? How would you like to be held accountable for the actions of some misguided Christians? Christianity has a history of violence and a continuing legacy of violence that is at the very least comparable with that of the Muslims. Actions of the few do not warrant knee jerk reactions against the many.

Many supremacist groups rely on Christianity to rally their "cause". Does that mean that you should be associated with them? Like it or not you pray at an altar rooted in bloodshed. You and I know there is more to it than that, but to an outsider what is the real difference? This is the judgment being passed on peaceful Muslims because of the actions of some radical groups. How do you justify this?

Matthew 5:44
Matthew 7:1-6
Luke 23:32-43
Peter 3:8-11

If it were a permanent ban, no. I think folks are mapping what they think will happen versus what will probably happen, both in accordance with the text of the order and prior statements by Pres. Trump.

Would I want to be held accountable by the actions of extreme individuals in my own faith? Well, that's an interesting question. If Christianity, as it stood right now (timing is important!), had several countries with a history of exporting terrorism in the name of its faith, then yes, I would want some extra scrutiny on refugees from those territories. I would not want to shut it down entirely, but there is nothing wrong with a period of evaluating our security procedures. If it exceeds reason, I will have a problem with it, so I'm very much watching the Administration closely.

I feel the best approach is something between "let them all in" and "keep them foreigners out!" I believe many of the refugees can be cared for on their own continent better than resettling them here. I can also understand prioritizing religious minorities, which is certainly one of the tests of granting asylum. Groups like the Yazidis and Christians are at more significant risk in most cases.

As a Christian, I am absolutely sympathetic to their plight, and feel appropriate aid should be rendered. If the best option is relocation, then so be it! I am also sympathetic to the desire to protect our own people as well. I believe there is a middle ground to find here that balances security and charity, and I pray that we can find it.

[ZeroAX]

Even though I'm an atheist, I always had respect for Jesus as a philosopher (i believe he was a real historic person). But I always found it sad how the most "religious" people tend to not follow his morals about treating other people and instead focus on the organized religion stuff.

If you're a true Christian you should be even more open to trusting other people and helping the ones being persecuted by war.

EDIT

I must say you guys must be really proud of the protestors. Nice to see the nice face of America still exists.