Why do Some Christians support Trump?

[Punished UMN]

[
No one has said any such thing. Only that you should make political decisions based on your ethical principles, and if you claim to be a Christian then those ethical principles should be informed by Christian belief. If you are actively making decisions that you know to be unethical, then you are not an ethical person, i.e. you are a bad person. It's not complicated.

Unethical for not combining my religion with my politics. What a state we are in. What isn't complicated is how bad this ideology is. Do not try to force how you believe something should be handled onto someone else. Anyway, I see this getting more and more heated. This conversation will end here.
Agree to Disagree.

The problem is that you're not following your own ethics. Religion is an ethical system.

[Manokan Republic]

[
No one has said any such thing. Only that you should make political decisions based on your ethical principles, and if you claim to be a Christian then those ethical principles should be informed by Christian belief. If you are actively making decisions that you know to be unethical, then you are not an ethical person, i.e. you are a bad person. It's not complicated.

Unethical for not combining my religion with my politics. What a state we are in. What isn't complicated is how bad this ideology is. Do not try to force how you believe something should be handled onto someone else. Anyway, I see this getting more and more heated. This conversation will end here.
Agree to Disagree.

I always find it annoying when others try to prescriptively tell you how YOUR religious beliefs should effect YOU, as if you can't make these decisions for yourself. It's an attempt to trap you obviously but, it's pretty gross in general. You HAVE to think this way if you have this religion! Even though, nowhere does it say you actually have to do that and that's stupid anyways, everyone has their own interpretations. The nearly 40,000+ some odd denominations of Christianity prove that.

[Punished UMN]

Unethical for not combining my religion with my politics. What a state we are in. What isn't complicated is how bad this ideology is. Do not try to force how you believe something should be handled onto someone else. Anyway, I see this getting more and more heated. This conversation will end here.
Agree to Disagree.

I always find it annoying when others try to prescriptively tell you how YOUR religious beliefs should effect YOU, as if you can't make these decisions for yourself. It's an attempt to trap you obviously but, it's pretty gross in general. You HAVE to think this way if you have this religion! Even though, nowhere does it say you actually have to do that and that's stupid anyways, everyone has their own interpretations. The nearly 40,000+ some odd denominations of Christianity prove that.

Actually, it does say somewhere you have to do that.

[Manokan Republic]

Unethical for not combining my religion with my politics. What a state we are in. What isn't complicated is how bad this ideology is. Do not try to force how you believe something should be handled onto someone else. Anyway, I see this getting more and more heated. This conversation will end here.
Agree to Disagree.

The problem is that you're not following your own ethics. Religion is an ethical system.

Nowhere does it say in Christianity that you have to impart your religion in to all politics, though. Many decisions are made absent religious faith, such as which guitar to buy or which car, many decisions are personal and not related to God or Christianity or religion, or what have you.

[Washington Resistance Army]

on top of being close friends and eulogizing at a KKK person's funeral and so on, is much worse than what Trump is accused of.

I'm sorry if this comes across as rude but have you ever actually read anything about Robert Byrd beyond what Trumpist propaganda shoves into your head? Like, even a single article?

I'll assume the answer to this is no so I'll inform everyone else in the thread that the reason Joe Biden gave a eulogy to a "KKK recruiter" is because said person left the Klan in the 50's or 60's and subsequently spent the rest of his living life trying to improve things for black Americans and won high praise from groups like the NAACP for his tireless work on the topic.

[Manokan Republic]

I'm sorry if this comes across as rude but have you ever actually read anything about Robert Byrd beyond what Trumpist propaganda shoves into your head? Like, even a single article?

I'll assume the answer to this is no so I'll inform everyone else in the thread that the reason Joe Biden gave a eulogy to a "KKK recruiter" is because said person left the Klan in the 50's or 60's and subsequently spent the rest of his living life trying to improve things for black Americans and won high praise from groups like the NAACP for his tireless work on the topic.

Biden's history with racism is deeper than Trump saying a few things which can be taken out of context on Twitter, which is my point. If we are doing a comparison, Trump comes off as a lot better, not that Biden is to this day super racist, although he did say if you don't vote for me you aren't black and called black people predators, nonetheless. Biden is a 70's democrat, who have a kind of touchy history with civil rights, he is old enough to have been against many civil rights bills. That being said I'm willing to forgive the sins of the past, but certainly if we can forgive Biden and the democrats for their past affiliation with the KKK, we can forgive Trump for a few mean words on twitter. In the context of this conversation, who is the lesser of two evils, that is the important reason for bringing it up.

[Kowani]

For the past few elections I’ve seen it as a choice between two evils, and that Donald Trump is the lesser.

Here’s what I think is positive for him. The order of the list means nothing.
1. He been great for the black community and the poor.

This is objectively false.

2. He’s good for the economy

This is also false.

and not entirely responsible for how the Corona Virus impacted us.

He is, however, mostly false.

3. He promotes religious freedom.

For Christians.

4. He’s not going to defund or dismantle the police.

Neither is Joe Biden.

5. He protects the 2nd Amendment.

Donald "Bump Stock Ban" Trump

6. He’s against erasing history.

This is also a lie

7. I’m glad he increased the Child Care fund in 2018 to help low income family’s.

This is actually good.

He increased funding for Historically Black Colleges & Universities by 13% setting the Highest record. Providing more than 500,000,000$ in loans.

No, he restored it to the same levels as it was under Obama.

9. He’s not for the idea of taking away the electoral college.

This is true. It is also bad.

10. He’s pro voter ID, meaning he supports the idea of people being required to show photo identification in order to vote.

So a solution without a problem.

11.Hes against the Green New Deal.

So is Joe Biden.

12. Anti Obamacare.

...And this is good?

13. He’s physically and mentally capable of performing as President.

Um. Right.

14. He’s Pro Life.

...I suppose that's true.

[Punished UMN]

The problem is that you're not following your own ethics. Religion is an ethical system.

Nowhere does it say in Christianity that you have to impart your religion in to all politics, though. Many decisions are made absent religious faith, such as which guitar to buy or which car, many decisions are personal and not related to God or Christianity or religion, or what have you.

It does however say you have to put your religion above your politics, and many political decisions have extensive religious commentary on them.

[Old Tyrannia]

Unethical for not combining my religion with my politics. What a state we are in. What isn't complicated is how bad this ideology is. Do not try to force how you believe something should be handled onto someone else. Anyway, I see this getting more and more heated. This conversation will end here.
Agree to Disagree.

I always find it annoying when others try to prescriptively tell you how YOUR religious beliefs should effect YOU, as if you can't make these decisions for yourself. It's an attempt to trap you obviously but, it's pretty gross in general. You HAVE to think this way if you have this religion! Even though, nowhere does it say you actually have to do that and that's stupid anyways, everyone has their own interpretations. The nearly 40,000+ some odd denominations of Christianity prove that.

It is one thing for Christians to hold different political positions from one another because they have differing opinions on the effect of different policies or because they have different interpretations of Christian ethical teachings and how they should be applied. It is an entirely different matter for a self-professed Christian to claim that their religion has absolutely no nearing on the political decisions that they make. Christianity is not a hobby for people to busy themselves with at the weekend and then lay aside during the week. It should shape every aspect of your life, especially your ethics.

[French Volta]

In words of Frederick Douglass, “I will unite with anyone to do good and with no one to do wrong”.

[Lower Nubia]

Slow down, there's a difference between nations having high crime rates and people coming from those countries being part of that enterprise. In addition, I can think of plenty of more violent countries than the ones included in the ban, so why these countries specifically?



Boom boom! We got a winner! found the actual reason. Interestingly enough Saudi Arabia exports the most terrorists... why was that not on the list...



Again, this isn't actually a good reason for those specific nations being included. Why those nations and not, say... Brazil... or South Africa... or anywhere else with way higher crime rates?

The obvious reason he banned those countries is that they have Muslim asylum seekers and Trump didn't want Muslim asylum seekers in the US, as that would piss off his base.

If his problem was muslims coming here, then why not add Saudi Arabia to the list, as you have already mentioned, it's a far larger muslim country?

I gave the reason, it's to stop Muslim asylum seekers. Does Saudi Arabia have masses of refugees leaving?

You are contradicting yourself already.

Have I? The only claim I made was that this ban was to stop Muslim asylum seekers, and that's just a blatant fact.

The main reason is that terrorists are coming here from this countries, as well as other various violent individuals, such as with North Korean military individuals, and so on.

Backtrack here, you specified violent crime, and now it's terrorism, I agree terrorism is violent crime, but it is a very specific contingent of it, which makes your lack of openness about it... odd, and yet Saudi Arabia exports the most terrorists.

Finally, did the number of terrorist incidents decrease?

There are muslim asylum seekers coming here, so this did not block them, it just didn't let them come directly from these countries, they went to other countries first, such as Saudi Arabia.

Wait, wait, these countries form the vast majority of all the worlds current asylum seekers: Syria, Libya, Somalia, I mean, did you just want to prove my point?

It even says:

"In the weeks prior to the executive order, the US admitted approximately 1,800 refugees per week from the seven countries, while the order was in effect, the US received two from these countries."

Sound like you're... bullshitting.

The reason for these nations was due to the ongoing hostilities and high chance violent individuals would be embedded within potential refugee populations and there would be no way to vet them.

So now it went from violence in these countries, to violent refugees from these countries. I'm sensing a theme.

Frankly there is a need for restrictions on all countries, which there are already are hence the legal vs. illegal immigration situation, but these countries specifically were high risk. It's not that the population is violent, it's that embedded within the populations coming here there will be disproportionate groups of violent people. If you look at Europe, you will see these refugee groups have been disproportionately violent and that muslim terrorist attacks have skyrocketed across many European countries, just in recent memory a beheading of a teacher for example.

This doesn't mean that we don't let in refugees outright or that all of them are violent (they are not), but that we have to be incredibly selective and careful in how we do it, or else we will see spikes in violence, like the nearly doubling of all rapes and 50% increase in lethal violence in Sweden, just for example. We're now getting in to the nuances of very specific policies, and again I figured "people coming from violent regions of the world" would be good enough, but if you want to pilpul everything, I am willing to go down the increasingly specific reasons. Whatever you want to say, what you are claiming is that you think you can read his mind, and you are accusing him of bad thoughts for having these policies, specifically anti-Muslim thoughts, for whatever reason, as compared to the threat of violent groups of individuals likely to come here when it wasn't all muslim countries, and countries like North korea were added to the list. We also didn't stop taking Muslim refugees.


Sweden lethal violence increase from 80 to 120 since 2012.
(Image)
(Image)

Let me get this straight... your suggestion for being incredibly selective was a blanket ban...

The problem and I think it's pretty evident, is that the US asylum seekers come from places like Central Africa, and Southern Africa is large volumes and that asylum seekers are more likely to be violent because of socioeconomic reasons, which should apply to all asylum seekers.

So here's my question, why did it only ban asylum seekers from these countries, when the US receives asylum from a vast number of countries beyond these nations?

I could understand your narrative if the ban was on all countries which provide large numbers of refugees to the US, but it isn't. It's just these countries. So why? As I have asked.

[Manokan Republic]

Negative and Anti Christian things.

1. I don’t see the point in the Wall. I don’t think Heavenly Father supports that, Heavenly Father wants us to be good Samaritans and help those in need. As far as I’m concerned this is his policy to ALL of his children regardless of what country they come from. So there needs to be immigration reform. If something is anti nuclear Family then it’s against God. Compassion is needed. However at the same time I do not support foolishness such as allowing anyone into the country, we need to come up with more effective ways of vetting out criminals and terrorists while at the same time not separating families.

One thing I would argue is that the border wall protects illegal immigrants as well as Americans. Something like 60-80% of woman illegally trafficked here are raped (even according to left-wing sources), and often sold in to sex slavery or as cheap labor for big corporations. From an empathetic and moral perspective, it doesn't really make sense to continue this system, and making sure people come in legally protects them as well as us. Taking them in is not the only or even best way to help them and, helping build up Mexico is really the ideal way to handle things. Frankly it would be impossible for American to take in the whole world, or even all 200 million people of Mexico. Who do we decide to help, only those that risked their lives to come here illegally? It makes more sense to help Mexico as a whole in their own country than try to send them all here and turn Mexico in to a ghost town. If America accepts in all the best and brightest people from Mexico, is it actually good for Mexico, who will just continue to get poorer while losing their smartest people to America? It seems to make more sense to help Mexico by itself than try to bring them all here which is impossible and likely wouldn't help them all anyways.

[Lower Nubia]

He's trying to compliment his daughter by saying, if he could, he would? In what was is that not creepy?

I mean... here's the video...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=avQq2Mr0A9M



Haven't seen a deflection like this since the Hand of God.

If complimenting your daughter in a weird way is creepy, how is sniffing little girls that end up naked on your son's labtop not creepy? If we are talking about why Trump instead of Biden, if simply a weird compliment = evil and bad, how is sexually assaulting under-aged girls not dramatically worse? The choice doesn't seem very hard between the two if going by the individual character of the two individuals.

Who said it wasen't? I'm saying it applies to both. Which is the concern because the other person said it turned them off from Biden (understandable) but not Trump, when both have said creepy statements in the same regard.

[Kowani]

Negative and Anti Christian things.

1. I don’t see the point in the Wall. I don’t think Heavenly Father supports that, Heavenly Father wants us to be good Samaritans and help those in need. As far as I’m concerned this is his policy to ALL of his children regardless of what country they come from. So there needs to be immigration reform. If something is anti nuclear Family then it’s against God. Compassion is needed. However at the same time I do not support foolishness such as allowing anyone into the country, we need to come up with more effective ways of vetting out criminals and terrorists while at the same time not separating families.

One thing I would argue is that the border wall protects illegal immigrants as well as Americans. Something like 60-80% of woman illegally trafficked here are raped (even according to left-wing sources), and often sold in to sex slavery or as cheap labor for big corporations. From an empathetic and moral perspective, it doesn't really make sense to continue this system, and making sure people come in legally protects them as well as us. Taking them in is not the only or even best way to help them and, helping build up Mexico is really the ideal way to handle things. Frankly it would be impossible for American to take in the whole world, or even all 200 million people of Mexico. Who do we decide to help, only those that risked their lives to come here illegally? It makes more sense to help Mexico as a whole in their own country than try to send them all here and turn Mexico in to a ghost town. If America accepts in all the best and brightest people from Mexico, is it actually good for Mexico, who will just continue to get poorer while losing their smartest people to America? It seems to make more sense to help Mexico by itself than try to bring them all here which is impossible and likely wouldn't help them all anyways.

The wall that won't work to stop immigration, you mean?

[Manokan Republic]

If his problem was muslims coming here, then why not add Saudi Arabia to the list, as you have already mentioned, it's a far larger muslim country?

I gave the reason, it's to stop Muslim asylum seekers. Does Saudi Arabia have masses of refugees leaving?

You are contradicting yourself already.

Have I? The only claim I made was that this ban was to stop Muslim asylum seekers, and that's just a blatant fact.

The main reason is that terrorists are coming here from this countries, as well as other various violent individuals, such as with North Korean military individuals, and so on.

Backtrack here, you specified violent crime, and now it's terrorism, I agree terrorism is violent crime, but it is a very specific contingent of it, which makes your lack of openness about it... odd, and yet Saudi Arabia exports the most terrorists.

Finally, did the number of terrorist incidents decrease?

There are muslim asylum seekers coming here, so this did not block them, it just didn't let them come directly from these countries, they went to other countries first, such as Saudi Arabia.

Wait, wait, these countries form the vast majority of all the worlds current asylum seekers: Syria, Libya, Somalia, I mean, did you just want to prove my point?

It even says:

"In the weeks prior to the executive order, the US admitted approximately 1,800 refugees per week from the seven countries, while the order was in effect, the US received two from these countries."

Sound like you're... bullshitting.

The reason for these nations was due to the ongoing hostilities and high chance violent individuals would be embedded within potential refugee populations and there would be no way to vet them.

So now it went from violence in these countries, to violent refugees from these countries. I'm sensing a theme.

Frankly there is a need for restrictions on all countries, which there are already are hence the legal vs. illegal immigration situation, but these countries specifically were high risk. It's not that the population is violent, it's that embedded within the populations coming here there will be disproportionate groups of violent people. If you look at Europe, you will see these refugee groups have been disproportionately violent and that muslim terrorist attacks have skyrocketed across many European countries, just in recent memory a beheading of a teacher for example.

This doesn't mean that we don't let in refugees outright or that all of them are violent (they are not), but that we have to be incredibly selective and careful in how we do it, or else we will see spikes in violence, like the nearly doubling of all rapes and 50% increase in lethal violence in Sweden, just for example. We're now getting in to the nuances of very specific policies, and again I figured "people coming from violent regions of the world" would be good enough, but if you want to pilpul everything, I am willing to go down the increasingly specific reasons. Whatever you want to say, what you are claiming is that you think you can read his mind, and you are accusing him of bad thoughts for having these policies, specifically anti-Muslim thoughts, for whatever reason, as compared to the threat of violent groups of individuals likely to come here when it wasn't all muslim countries, and countries like North korea were added to the list. We also didn't stop taking Muslim refugees.


Sweden lethal violence increase from 80 to 120 since 2012.
(Image)
(Image)

Let me get this straight... your suggestion for being incredibly selective was a blanket ban...

The problem and I think it's pretty evident, is that the US asylum seekers come from places like Central Africa, and Southern Africa is large volumes and that asylum seekers are more likely to be violent because of socioeconomic reasons, which should apply to all asylum seekers.

So here's my question, why did it only ban asylum seekers from these countries, when the US receives asylum from a vast number of countries beyond these nations?

I could understand your narrative if the ban was on all countries which provide large numbers of refugees to the US, but it isn't. It's just these countries. So why? As I have asked.

I have literally already told you it was due to the fact large amounts of violent people were embedded in to the refugee population and there was no good way to vet them. The problem is not total violence rates, but the ability to screen refugees for said violent individuals. If we lack the ability to do that, then it does not realistically make sense to take them in, as we cannot do it and protect both them and our native population. Crime rates did go up in countries that accepted in large amounts of refugees without proper vetting systems, and that's a serious problem. The reason for these countries were the fact the refugee population was impossible to vet due to a break down in government systems that would normally handle this, like social security numbers, passports, and that sort of thing. WE don't know people are who they say they are, their kids are who they say they are, their criminal histories and so on.

Saying it was clearly that he just wanted to attack Muslims assumes you think you can read his mind, even though the policy clearly doesn't effect just Muslims, and not all Muslim countries, it's specific war-torn one's. There is a difference between violent crime and wars as well, which is country's with wars have way higher levels of violence, but not violent crime; violent crime is usually not recorded in these countries in large amounts given the lack of social order and break-down of police and society. It's not really counted as crime, so much as violence in general. Honduras has the highest violent crime rate in the entire world, but the thing is we can screen people coming from Honduras quite easily, they have things like social security cards and passports, criminal histories and so on that you would find in a developed country, but with the total break down it's a completely random assortment of people we have no idea about and have no way to vet, so naturally it becomes difficult to accept them in. The point is not about just cutting down on the number of refugees coming in, and again you have to assume intentions of people rather broadly, which seems imparted by you rather than obviously stated or anywhere a part of the policy specifically.

[Manokan Republic]

If complimenting your daughter in a weird way is creepy, how is sniffing little girls that end up naked on your son's labtop not creepy? If we are talking about why Trump instead of Biden, if simply a weird compliment = evil and bad, how is sexually assaulting under-aged girls not dramatically worse? The choice doesn't seem very hard between the two if going by the individual character of the two individuals.

Who said it wasen't? I'm saying it applies to both. Which is the concern because the other person said it turned them off from Biden (understandable) but not Trump, when both have said creepy statements in the same regard.

I really don't think an out of context quote by Trump is as bad as literally groping little girls on live television where we can all see it. You have to assume really negative intentions by Trump and be uncharitable in what Trump is trying to say, where as even if Biden is not meaning to be off-putting to these girls, it is still bad as he clearly can't read people very well or respect them as people and would make a terrible politician as a result. That's assuming Biden isn't malicious, it's still bad, with Trump if you don't assume bad intentions, you have nothing but something which sounds bad out of context.

Basically, you have to assume you are a mind-reader and think Trump is saying he wants to have sex with his daughter, which is a broadly uncharitable thing that frankly doesn't even need this quote to exist. He is just saying he thinks his own daughter is pretty, lots of people compliment their children on their looks.

[Lower Nubia]

I gave the reason, it's to stop Muslim asylum seekers. Does Saudi Arabia have masses of refugees leaving?



Have I? The only claim I made was that this ban was to stop Muslim asylum seekers, and that's just a blatant fact.



Backtrack here, you specified violent crime, and now it's terrorism, I agree terrorism is violent crime, but it is a very specific contingent of it, which makes your lack of openness about it... odd, and yet Saudi Arabia exports the most terrorists.

Finally, did the number of terrorist incidents decrease?



Wait, wait, these countries form the vast majority of all the worlds current asylum seekers: Syria, Libya, Somalia, I mean, did you just want to prove my point?

It even says:

"In the weeks prior to the executive order, the US admitted approximately 1,800 refugees per week from the seven countries, while the order was in effect, the US received two from these countries."

Sound like you're... bullshitting.




So now it went from violence in these countries, to violent refugees from these countries. I'm sensing a theme.



Let me get this straight... your suggestion for being incredibly selective was a blanket ban...

The problem and I think it's pretty evident, is that the US asylum seekers come from places like Central Africa, and Southern Africa is large volumes and that asylum seekers are more likely to be violent because of socioeconomic reasons, which should apply to all asylum seekers.

So here's my question, why did it only ban asylum seekers from these countries, when the US receives asylum from a vast number of countries beyond these nations?

I could understand your narrative if the ban was on all countries which provide large numbers of refugees to the US, but it isn't. It's just these countries. So why? As I have asked.

I have literally already told you it was due to the fact large amounts of violent people were embedded in to the refugee population and there was no good way to vet them. The problem is not total violence rates, but the ability to screen refugees for said violent individuals. If we lack the ability to do that, then it does not realistically make sense to take them in, as we cannot do it and protect both them and our native population. Crime rates did go up in countries that accepted in large amounts of refugees without proper vetting systems, and that's a serious problem. The reason for these countries were the fact the refugee population was impossible to vet due to a break down in government systems that would normally handle this, like social security numbers, passports, and that sort of thing. WE don't know people are who they say they are, their kids are who they say they are, their criminal histories and so on.

Saying it was clearly that he just wanted to attack Muslims assumes you think you can read his mind, even though the policy clearly doesn't effect just Muslims, and not all Muslim countries, it's specific war-torn one's. There is a difference between violent crime and wars as well, which is country's with wars have way higher levels of violence, but not violent crime; violent crime is usually not recorded in these countries in large amounts given the lack of social order and break-down of police and society. It's not really counted as crime, so much as violence in general. Honduras has the highest violent crime rate in the entire world, but the thing is we can screen people coming from Honduras quite easily, they have things like social security cards and passports, criminal histories and so on that you would find in a developed country, but with the total break down it's a completely random assortment of people we have no idea about and have no way to vet, so naturally it becomes difficult to accept them in. The point is not about just cutting down on the number of refugees coming in, and again you have to assume intentions of people rather broadly, which seems imparted by you rather than obviously stated or anywhere a part of the policy specifically.

That's the problem though! The US receives asylum seekers from a vast number of nations beyond those banned ones, it's just these nations represent a vast number of Muslim asylum seekers. If asylum seekers (Regardless of religion) are inherently more violent due to their socioeconomic position, why was the ban not on all the asylum-seeking nations?

[Lower Nubia]

Who said it wasen't? I'm saying it applies to both. Which is the concern because the other person said it turned them off from Biden (understandable) but not Trump, when both have said creepy statements in the same regard.

I really don't think an out of context quote by Trump is as bad as literally groping little girls on live television where we can all see it. You have to assume really negative intentions by Trump and be uncharitable in what Trump is trying to say, where as even if Biden is not meaning to be off-putting to these girls, it is still bad as he clearly can't read people very well or respect them as people and would make a terrible politician as a result. That's assuming Biden isn't malicious, it's still bad, with Trump if you don't assume bad intentions, you have nothing but something which sounds bad out of context.

For a start of that's not the only incident of Trump's creepyness, the problem is is one somehow tolerable?

Nothing of the statement is out of context. I literally posted the video for all to see.

[Manokan Republic]

I have literally already told you it was due to the fact large amounts of violent people were embedded in to the refugee population and there was no good way to vet them. The problem is not total violence rates, but the ability to screen refugees for said violent individuals. If we lack the ability to do that, then it does not realistically make sense to take them in, as we cannot do it and protect both them and our native population. Crime rates did go up in countries that accepted in large amounts of refugees without proper vetting systems, and that's a serious problem. The reason for these countries were the fact the refugee population was impossible to vet due to a break down in government systems that would normally handle this, like social security numbers, passports, and that sort of thing. WE don't know people are who they say they are, their kids are who they say they are, their criminal histories and so on.

Saying it was clearly that he just wanted to attack Muslims assumes you think you can read his mind, even though the policy clearly doesn't effect just Muslims, and not all Muslim countries, it's specific war-torn one's. There is a difference between violent crime and wars as well, which is country's with wars have way higher levels of violence, but not violent crime; violent crime is usually not recorded in these countries in large amounts given the lack of social order and break-down of police and society. It's not really counted as crime, so much as violence in general. Honduras has the highest violent crime rate in the entire world, but the thing is we can screen people coming from Honduras quite easily, they have things like social security cards and passports, criminal histories and so on that you would find in a developed country, but with the total break down it's a completely random assortment of people we have no idea about and have no way to vet, so naturally it becomes difficult to accept them in. The point is not about just cutting down on the number of refugees coming in, and again you have to assume intentions of people rather broadly, which seems imparted by you rather than obviously stated or anywhere a part of the policy specifically.

That's the problem though! The US receives asylum seekers from a vast number of nations beyond those banned ones, it's just these nations represent a vast number of Muslim asylum seekers. If asylum seekers (Regardless of religion) are inherently more violent due to their socioeconomic position, why was the ban not on all the asylum-seeking nations?

I literally have already explained this, the point of these countries was it was too difficult to track the potential migrants. It's not to block all Asylum seekers, or a bulk of them, it's to block criminals. They happened to be largely Muslim-majority countries, but not all of them. Oh no? You have to assume that it's due to prejudice against muslims, which you can't prove and are just assuming, vs. the fact they are actually violent places. They happen to be the same 7 countries that Obama chose to put restrictions on, too. I guess Obama Chose these 7 countries and hates muslims too? The only difference is the level of which Trump went to, but it's not that these countries are muslim, but places where it's hard to vet refugees coming in. It *happens to be* the middle east has a lot of violence and wars going on right now with a break down of governments in several places, and so it happens to be most of the country on travel watch-dog lists are there. This isn't a slight against muslims, just right now the muslim-world, or the middle east, has a lot of violence. If this was a different time period, maybe it would be the other way around, but right now, the middle east is in a bad situation. The list of countries are chosen from those provided by political advisors, apparently the same advisors to Obama. It's the dangers reflected by these countries, not that they are muslim-majority countries.

[Manokan Republic]

I really don't think an out of context quote by Trump is as bad as literally groping little girls on live television where we can all see it. You have to assume really negative intentions by Trump and be uncharitable in what Trump is trying to say, where as even if Biden is not meaning to be off-putting to these girls, it is still bad as he clearly can't read people very well or respect them as people and would make a terrible politician as a result. That's assuming Biden isn't malicious, it's still bad, with Trump if you don't assume bad intentions, you have nothing but something which sounds bad out of context.

For a start of that's not the only incident of Trump's creepyness, the problem is is one somehow tolerable?

Nothing of the statement is out of context. I literally posted the video for all to see.

You have to broadly assume his intention is to rape his own daughter, which is way more than an exaggeration of what he says. And saying he'd date his daughter is also different from saying he'd have sex with her, as well. You have to jump to crazy conclusions and assume you are reading his mind to mean bad things. It's silly.

Vs. a physical act caught live on camera. Words are nowhere near on the level, and it's easy to twist what someone is saying to sound creepy out of context. If that's all they had against Biden, weird words out of context, I'd say eh, whatever. Sometimes people even misspeak. That's called being charitable and not assuming the worst about people. The problem is even if you are charitable to Biden's intentions, his actions are still atrocious, making him by far worse. It's not remotely the same thing, as weird comments out of context are not as bad as physical actions, hell even if Trump straight up said "Yeah, I'd bang her", it's still not as bad as actually going so far as to do physical things to people.

[Lower Nubia]

That's the problem though! The US receives asylum seekers from a vast number of nations beyond those banned ones, it's just these nations represent a vast number of Muslim asylum seekers. If asylum seekers (Regardless of religion) are inherently more violent due to their socioeconomic position, why was the ban not on all the asylum-seeking nations?

I literally have already explained this, the point of these countries was it was too difficult to track the potential migrants. It's not to block all Asylum seekers, or a bulk of them, it's to block criminals. They happened to be largely Muslim-majority countries, but not all of them. Oh no? You have to assume that it's due to prejudice against muslims, which you can't prove and are just assuming, vs. the fact they are actually violent places. They happen to be the same 7 countries that Obama chose to put restrictions on, too. I guess Obama Chose these 7 countries and hates muslims too? The only difference is the level of which Trump went to, but it's not that these countries are muslim, but places where it's hard to vet refugees coming in. It *happens to be* the middle east has a lot of violence and wars going on right now with a break down of governments in several places, and so it happens to be most of the country on travel watch-dog lists are there. This isn't a slight against muslims, just right now the muslim-world, or the middle east, has a lot of violence. If this was a different time period, maybe it would be the other way around, but right now, the middle east is in a bad situation. The list of countries are chosen from those provided by political advisors, apparently the same advisors to Obama. It's the dangers reflected by these countries, not that they are muslim-majority countries.

So now you're suggesting the reason the ban happened is because the infrastructure in the countries listed couldn't provide an accurate assessment of who was arriving?

So here are primary refugees populations:



Are you suggesting that the nations which he didn't ban which represent enough administrative competency that they could provide enough info on their refugees compared to the nations Trump banned?

I'm sorry, that is bullshit.

Ethiopia. Dr Congo. Ivory Coast. South Sudan. Are not some bastions of administrative competence and certainly do not have a higher standard of checks on these groups.

So I'll ask again, why these nations? Why these asyslum seekers?

Additionally, I've already shown it did ban them in bulk, as the number of refugees went down from 1800 a week to 2. That's not stopping criminals that's stopping everyone.

[Lower Nubia]

For a start of that's not the only incident of Trump's creepyness, the problem is is one somehow tolerable?

Nothing of the statement is out of context. I literally posted the video for all to see.

You have to broadly assume his intention is to rape his own daughter, which is way more than an exaggeration of what he says. And saying he'd date his daughter is also different from saying he'd have sex with her, as well. You have to jump to crazy conclusions and assume you are reading his mind to mean bad things. It's silly.

Vs. a physical act caught live on camera. Words are nowhere near on the level, and it's easy to twist what someone is saying to sound creepy out of context. If that's all they had against Biden, weird words out of context, I'd say eh, whatever. Sometimes people even misspeak. That's called being charitable and not assuming the worst about people. The problem is even if you are charitable to Biden's intentions, his actions are still atrocious, making him by far worse. It's not remotely the same thing, as weird comments out of context are not as bad as physical actions, hell even if Trump straight up said "Yeah, I'd bang her", it's still not as bad as actually going so far as to do physical things to people.

What the fuck are you on about? We literally have actual rape allegations against Trump, it's not like Trump's some bastion of sexual chastity compared to Biden, why when he's done countless other strange things with his family are we not allowed to hypothesise but Biden's fine to do so? You can get video's of Trump kissing young girls inappropriately, testimony of him viewing underage girls inappropriatly. I find your lack of concern shocking.

[United Hemand Insia]

The answer is the same to the question "Why do some Atheists support Biden?" The answer is because they can.

[Manokan Republic]

One thing I would argue is that the border wall protects illegal immigrants as well as Americans. Something like 60-80% of woman illegally trafficked here are raped (even according to left-wing sources), and often sold in to sex slavery or as cheap labor for big corporations. From an empathetic and moral perspective, it doesn't really make sense to continue this system, and making sure people come in legally protects them as well as us. Taking them in is not the only or even best way to help them and, helping build up Mexico is really the ideal way to handle things. Frankly it would be impossible for American to take in the whole world, or even all 200 million people of Mexico. Who do we decide to help, only those that risked their lives to come here illegally? It makes more sense to help Mexico as a whole in their own country than try to send them all here and turn Mexico in to a ghost town. If America accepts in all the best and brightest people from Mexico, is it actually good for Mexico, who will just continue to get poorer while losing their smartest people to America? It seems to make more sense to help Mexico by itself than try to bring them all here which is impossible and likely wouldn't help them all anyways.

The wall that won't work to stop immigration, you mean?

The wall won't stop legal immigration, of course. Those that overstay their visas don't actually make up half of all illegal immigrants, but half of all illegal immigrant cases per year, with them quickly becoming legal again due to grace periods offered by a chance to renew your greencard or become a citizen. It will help curb illegal immigration, more importantly human trafficking which is the biggest issue (as well as drug and guns trafficking) and the parts that already were built are. Crossings dropped by 96%, which is quite remarkable really. It's not that hard with some decent security and a fence to make it so those that try to jump across are caught before they get very far. It's easy enough to check for tunnels with underground tunneling equipment which is present along built areas of the existing wall, among other things. There's only been about 200 attempts to build a tunnel and something like 45 successful one's, so it's not a common thing and easily detected, with the only truly successful one's being tunnels that built in to naturally existing infrastructure such as sewer systems. Essentially, walls work, and 65 other countries have border walls, many of which have also been proven to work.

[Ricksolot]

Kowani it says to take nothing you say seriously unless theres a link so I want respond cause I don’t know if your serious.


About the wall, I just don’t like things that damage or are against the nuclear family. I’m not gonna claim to know much about the wall and I’m open to being corrected providing you have information from a reliable source. But from what I’ve heard a lot of immigration doesn’t exactly occur through that wall. However in regards to the immigration that does occur at the wall I’ve heard that it’s effective at stoping illegal entry to the U.S. But the money could potentially have gone to others things and I don’t know if the effect was worth it. Additionally I’ve heard that family’s tend to have great difficulty there.