POLITICS & DONALD Annoying Orange MEGATHREAD

[SeventhSandwich]

Do you believe we should have let Japanese and German people into the United States while the USA was actively at war with those countries?

Yes. We turned away boats of German Jews during WW2 and people in those ships were later sent off to Auschwitz and gassed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS_St._Louis

[Ad Bot]

[extremely extreme]

We can either accept a negligibly small risk to our country, or we can let literally tens of thousands of innocent people die. If the conservatives are right about us being a 'Christian nation', then the choice is obvious.

Maybe you can accept that risk but I can't and neither can millions of other Americans. How are we supposed to vet thousands of migrants? Why should we use taxpayer money on housing for them? What if no one wants to hire them, do we put them on welfare? We have bigger fish to fry here in the US like rebuilding our inner cities and public schools. I'm not religious or a conservative and I don't give a stuff what religion someone practices.

[beachbum111111]

Yes. We turned away boats of German Jews during WW2 and people in those ships were later sent off to Auschwitz and gassed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS_St._Louis

Yes lets let in thousands of people from a country we are actively at war with. Many of which could be enemy spies. Come on man, I thought you of all people would understand reals over feels. It's easy to cry about what happened and virtue signal in hindsight but the reality is that at the time the United States had no clue how many of them were potential enemies and it was too risky to let them in.

[SeventhSandwich]

Maybe you can accept that risk but I can't and neither can millions of other Americans.

Then you have no business calling yourself a humanist, or a Christian, or whatever. We accept risks greater than those posed by refugees on a daily basis - we let people drive without seat-belts, we over-prescribe opiod painkillers to our aging population, we don't even chain down vending machines that crush several dozen people on a yearly basis.

But when accepting a small risk means saving tens of thousands of Muslim lives - it's too much for you. If you actually think it's an appropriate trade-off to let Syrian and Iraqi Shi'ites die, then you clearly don't value their lives even slightly.

Yes lets let in thousands of people from a country we are actively at war with. Many of which could be enemy spies. Come on man, I thought you of all people would understand reals over feels. It's easy to cry about what happened and virtue signal in hindsight but the reality is that at the time the United States had no clue how many of them were potential enemies and it was too risky to let them in.

But we've done that in the past and the risks are provably negligible. Is that 'real' enough?

[beachbum111111]

Then you have no business calling yourself a humanist, or a Christian, or whatever. We accept risks greater than those posed by refugees on a daily basis - we let people drive without seat-belts, we over-prescribe opiod painkillers to our aging population, we don't even chain down vending machines that crush several dozen people on a yearly basis.

But when accepting a small risk means saving tens of thousands of Muslim lives - it's too much for you. If you actually think it's an appropriate trade-off to let Syrian and Iraqi Shi'ites die, then you clearly don't value their lives even slightly.

Yep, virtue signalling at it's finest.

[SeventhSandwich]

Yep, virtue signalling at it's finest.

It's a moral issue. Would be inappropriate not to address it.

[extremely extreme]

Then you have no business calling yourself a humanist, or a Christian, or whatever. We accept risks greater than those posed by refugees on a daily basis - we let people drive without seat-belts, we over-prescribe opiod painkillers to our aging population, we don't even chain down vending machines that crush several dozen people on a yearly basis.

I don't call my self a humanist and I literally just said I wasn't religious in my last post. That chain of dangerous things is also completely unrelated, the whole argument that "we have potentially dangerous things here already, there's no harm in bringing more" should be rejected out of hand. Not to mention the fact that Annoying Orange's immigration ban is tied for first as his most approved executive order.

[Operator¹]

it's pretty to easy to vet thousands of people when they can't cross the atlantic ocean and you have all the time in the world to vet them.

[SeventhSandwich]

I don't call my self a humanist and I literally just said I wasn't religious in my last post. That chain of dangerous things is also completely unrelated

It is related, because if you're going to let thousands of people die to avoid a small risk - then why not loving fix the things that cause an even greater risk but don't result in the deaths of thousands of people?

Like, is worsening the Syrian refugee crCIA seriously a higher priority move than passing a law that forces people to chain down their vending machines? It doesn't matter whether an American is killed by a vending machine or a Syrian refugee - they're dead no matter what.

I don't call my self a humanist and I literally just said I wasn't religious in my last post.

I'm just assuming you're not an actively malicious or terrible person. Which is why it confuses me that your priorities for 'protecting Americans' starts with killing Muslims, rather than fixing vending machines. One option is demonstrably easier and less destructive.

[beachbum111111]

It is related, because if you're going to let thousands of people die to avoid a small risk - then why not loving fix the things that cause an even greater risk but don't result in the deaths of thousands of people?

Yeah it's not like Annoying Orange is setting up safe zones in Syria- oh wait.

[SeventhSandwich]

Yeah it's not like Annoying Orange is setting up safe zones in Syria- oh wait.

You mean the same safe zones that Assad just rejected?

[extremely extreme]

It is related, because if you're going to let thousands of people die to avoid a small risk - then why not loving fix the things that cause an even greater risk but don't result in the deaths of thousands of people?

Like, is worsening the Syrian refugee crCIA seriously a higher priority move than passing a law that forces people to chain down their vending machines? It doesn't matter whether an American is killed by a vending machine or a Syrian refugee - they're dead no matter what.
I'm just assuming you're not an actively malicious or terrible person. Which is why it confuses me that your priorities for 'protecting Americans' starts with killing Muslims, rather than fixing vending machines. One option is demonstrably easier and less destructive.

My priorities don't start with 'killing muslims', they start with protecting the people I care about, and if you want me to say I'd support a law about chaining down vending machines then I will but this is a politics thread not a vending machine related death thread which is why I'm saying the two are unrelated. I'm also not sure why you think that if someone were to stay in Syria or Somalia or wherever then it would mean certain death, it's kind of a grim world view, don't you think?

[SeventhSandwich]

My priorities don't start with 'killing muslims', they start with protecting the people I care about, and if you want me to say I'd support a law about chaining down vending machines then I will but this is a politics thread not a vending machine related death thread which is why I'm saying the two are unrelated.

But the fact of the matter is that Annoying Orange is never going to fix the thousands of everyday risks that are provably more dangerous than refugees. This was never about 'national security' - it's a political move intended to prevent people from interacting with and understanding foreigners. After all, it's far more difficult to scapegoat and hate people who live next-door to you.

I'm also not sure why you think that if someone were to stay in Syria or Somalia or wherever then it would mean certain death, it's kind of a grim world view, don't you think?

Yeah, I don't know. Maybe CIA will just give up their attitude that Shi'ites are apostates deserving of death. Maybe they'll send them on an all-expenses-paid vacation to the Fiji Islands. What's with all the pessimism today?

[extremely extreme]

But the fact of the matter is that Annoying Orange is never going to fix the thousands of everyday risks that are provably more dangerous than refugees. This was never about 'national security' - it's a political move intended to prevent people from interacting with and understanding foreigners. After all, it's far more difficult to scapegoat and hate people who live next-door to you.

Yea, Annoying Orange doesn't care about protecting US citizens, he just wants them to hate foreigners. Do you realize how crazy that sounds?

Yeah, I don't know. Maybe CIA will just give up their attitude that Shi'ites are apostates deserving of death. Maybe they'll send them on an all-expenses-paid vacation to the Fiji Islands. What's with all the pessimism today?

Watch out, CIA is going to hunt down every last refugee and behead them.

[Red Spy]

Why can't we make them go to other Muslim countries so they can be out of warzones and avoid a culture clash