Petition to remove Donald Trump from HOF

[Mighty NorCal]

I think the logic is that someone who is fanatical enough about this thing to kill over it is probably not going to publicly deny it in a place of worship, or something of the sort. The details on how that is going to work aren't evident. If I were to hazard a guess, it would probably be more focused on who someone associated with or had connections to, plus their personal history. Not some "so, like, are ya gonna kill people or?" question with a "Y" or "N" block next to it.



But just as with the gun nuts, if you think you can try to improve something and make it harder for bad people to do bad things, its worth trying at least.

 

[Барбоса]

I think the logic is that someone who is fanatical enough about this thing to kill over it is probably not going to publicly deny it in a place of worship, or something of the sort.

And if the Paris attackers are anything to go by, they are a different breed, ready to go against basic tenets of Islam by drinking and doing drugs [we'll leave the whole slaughtering of innocents argument to the side]. A simple denial of being Muslim and a bacon sandwich would not stop them.

As to background checks, I have trouble seeing what extra use they might be if they were beefed up. Sure they might work if they are on the American radar, but given the state of the region many Muslims will be coming from, what kind of record of who they are beyond their passport is there going to be?

 

[Mighty NorCal]

And if the Paris attackers are anything to go by, they are a different breed, ready to go against basic tenets of Islam by drinking and doing drugs [we'll leave the whole slaughtering of innocents argument to the side]. A simple denial of being Muslim and a bacon sandwich would not stop them.

As to background checks, I have trouble seeing what extra use they might be if they were beefed up. Sure they might work if they are on the American radar, but given the state of the region many Muslims will be coming from, what kind of record of who they are beyond their passport is there going to be?

Like I said, it was just my best, totally unfounded guess as someone who has worked for the Government before. Who knows what measures they plan to take. Whatever it is, it will have officials confidence that it is an improvement over what was there before.

As ive said, better to try than hold status quo, when its clear status quo is ineffective. When something is ineffective, you try to improve it. See also: Gun Laws.

 

[Барбоса]

What is the evidence that current procedures are ineffective anyway? Are there a lot of arrests of immigrant terrorists?

 

[Mighty NorCal]

Well, about 30 in the last year alone, not counting the actual Terror attacks themselves on American soil(were obviously no one was arrested since they were killed or killed themselves), or the one I literally got texted about while driving home today, or the two which just occured within the last two weeks in PA and NY.


More than enough for me, especially since many of them were in contact with ISIS, with evidence of trying to devise plans for attacks......not to mention these are just the ones who got caught.

 

[Барбоса]

But are they actually immigrants or domestic?

 

[Mighty NorCal]

Yes, actual immigrants. I read your question properly(few exceptions, IE the American born guy ...who was influenced by an immigrant in the San Bernadino situation)


My question, in return (and this is open to Rayne as well)


What number would be sufficient for you? To look at and say hey, maybe we should try to take a look at this? 100 arrests? 20 ISIL inspired attacks on innocent people?

How many?

 

[Барбоса]

Honestly, I can't come up with a number that would make me call for the closing of our borders to specific group.

 

[Mighty NorCal]

Honestly, I can't come up with a number that would make me call for the closing of our borders to specific group.

For a short time, to try to reform your process to better weed out the bad ones from coming in?



If the number is unlimited, then I suppose we reach an impasse then.

 

[George Steele's Barber]

For a short time, to try to reform your process to better weed out the bad ones from coming in?



If the number is unlimited, then I suppose we reach an impasse then.

Some how I think the time it will take to figure out how to deny immigrants based on religious affiliation will take longer than coming up with a better system.

Is further openly alienating a decent portion of the world's population really worth it?

 

[Mighty NorCal]

Some how I think the time it will take to figure out how to deny immigrants based on religious affiliation will take longer than coming up with a better system.

Is further openly alienating a decent portion of the world's population really worth it?

If us asking people to have patience with coming to our country while we try to figure out a better system to keep everyone safe is going to alienate them to radicalization, perhaps they aren't people we want here anyways.


Is alienating people worth it to save innocent lives? unequivocally yes. At least you have the sense to not pretend this results in more than upsetting people.


You know what isn't fucking civilized or a logical way to do things? Killing people over being upset.

 

[Rayne]

What number would be sufficient for you? To look at and say hey, maybe we should try to take a look at this? 100 arrests? 20 ISIL inspired attacks on innocent people?

How many?

Serious cheek to ask this after I spent a good page trying to get you to place your "when it's OK to treat all members of a religion the same" line. (Sorry, when it's OK to treat all non-local members of a religion the same based on the actions of a specific subset.)

Both measures are fairly poor if we're talking about international terrorism. Using "amount of arrests" is inappropriate; it assumes that a poor policing program generating few arrests is an effective one, while a good policing program generating many arrests is indicative of a terrorism problem, which is a false dichotomy. As far as "inspired" attacks go, I've seen murderers blame everything from video games to Jesus; if you have a plan to stop ideas from entering our country, ante up! I'm somewhat impressed that since 9/11, if you want to talk successful Islamic terrorism in America, the response you get is "San Bernadino! kinda." I've been expecting a lot more from Islamic terrorists, but apparently they've realized they hardly have to do anything at all to frighten Americans.

 

[Mighty NorCal]

Saying that was probably the biggest and most stirring non-answer in the history of the forum is a strong statement, but not an unfounded one.

 

[Mighty NorCal]

Serious cheek to ask this after I spent a good page trying to get you to place your "when it's OK to treat all members of a religion the same" line. (Sorry, when it's OK to treat all non-local members of a religion the same based on the actions of a specific subset.)

Both measures are fairly poor if we're talking about international terrorism. Using "amount of arrests" is inappropriate; it assumes that a poor policing program generating few arrests is an effective one, while a good policing program generating many arrests is indicative of a terrorism problem, which is a false dichotomy. As far as "inspired" attacks go, I've seen murderers blame everything from video games to Jesus; if you have a plan to stop ideas from entering our country, ante up! I'm somewhat impressed that since 9/11, if you want to talk successful Islamic terrorism in America, the response you get is "San Bernadino! kinda." I've been expecting a lot more from Islamic terrorists, but apparently they've realized they hardly have to do anything at all to frighten Americans.

Also, have you had a lobatomy? Do you lack the actual mental capacity to process the correlation between an uptick of arrests and attacks on western civilization with the rise of an actual terrorist caliphate that kills thousands per day and outwardly says "we are responsible for these attacks, we are in your countries, and we will continue to do so"


As I said, what amount of evidence would need to occur for you to take that seriously?

 

[Rayne]

No, I just have the understanding that correlation!=causation, so I'm naturally leery of people when they insist the two are equal to support the latest political trend.

So it's a non-answer because the question is meaningless. As far as ACTUAL evidence goes, and not "WHY WON'T YOU AGREE THAT THE SKY IS FALLING" evidence, an actual attack by foreign terrorists would be a start. With material support, not "I read about these guys on Facebook and liked them!" We can count the amount of successful foreign Islamist extremist attacks on America since 9/11 on the exposed fingers of a closed fist, so perhaps the answer is that you're exaggerating a problem.

 

[Mighty NorCal]

You do not feel the attack in Paris is relevant to the attack in America? That the rise of an Islamic Caliphate and the arrest of numerous people recruiting for them and in contact with them is a serious issue that warrants having a look taken at it?

"At what point and what number of deaths and arrests would warrant such examination?" is a meaningless question?


Pretty convenient. Have a swell evening.

 

[Rayne]

Are you seriously getting uppity over a non-answer to your false dichotomy, when you refused to give an answer over the whole "subset of a religion" issue?

You've got some rare talents yourself, like being able to shit on the metaphorical floor while complaining that people are shitting on the floor.

 

[Rayne]

When it comes to the effectiveness of the American immigration regime, yes, I'm not terribly concerned about the French.

 

[Mighty NorCal]

"well you didnt answer so I dont have to neer neer neer" Like fucking really man?


And what number could I have said and it been satisfactory to you, Rayne? I dont have time to play games with you.


17. if 17 people join together, then its time to take them seriously. I didnt answer, because no answer would have been good enough for you, and there isnt one arbitrary number were its like "well 299 is ok....but 300! 300 and THEN shit is a serious amount of people"








Or I dunno, maybe into the hundreds of thousands, with their own country and standing army.






So, if your satisfied with a totally arbitrary number that is more situational than something to hold to a standard, please tell me the amount of arrests and deaths it would take for you to feel concerned that maybe these people are serious, and can and will carry out their plans?

 

[The Butcher]

What do you guys make of the reports of ISIS having a passport printer?

 

[Mighty NorCal]

When it comes to the effectiveness of the American immigration regime, yes, I'm not terribly concerned about the French.

SO people who immigrated to France and killed under the flag of ISIL in a western civilization after ISIL says this is their objective, and someone immigrates to the US and kills under the flag of ISIL after ISIL says this is their objective, and these two things have no connective tissue or do not go together to you?


Perhaps it is you who needs a diagram.

 

[X]

ISIS has lost about 40% of it's territory since last year. I don't really give a fuck about them and they deserve very little of our attention militarily.

 

[Mighty NorCal]

What do you guys make of the reports of ISIS having a passport printer?

Surely they did that because they aren't intending on traveling internationally to do anything. I mean its not like its a problem. Probably just for them to go around in their own area, even though they said they were going to go to western countries and kill people, and then proceeded to actually do it, and had numerous associates arrested while planning to carry out attacks. They were probably just kidding though, and are making passports to play house with or something,


Also, 2+2 = 7.

 

[Mighty NorCal]

ISIS has lost about 40% of it's territory since last year. I don't really give a fuck about them and they deserve very little of our attention militarily.

Indeed.

 

[Rayne]

If the United States and France operated the same immigration system, your apples wouldn't be oranges. But they are, so here we sit.