What a [BLEEP] shame this guy is

---

Here you go, good sir.

 

http://www.pewforum.org/files/2013/04/wo...report.pdf

A report that only polls people from countries that are known for their religious fundamentalism with the results extrapolated across the entire Muslim demographic. Well done, no way that could lead to skewed results.

---

What a [BAD WORD REMOVED] shame this guy is

 

I hope you at least read through some of this thread before making this statement. There is a lot of useful information in it that may change your opinion.

---

Here you go, good sir.

 

http://www.pewforum.org/files/2013/04/wo...report.pdf

 

Thanks squire, really interesting stuff in there. I'm sure whichever view you take on Islam you can find something in that report that supports your argument.

---

A report that only polls people from countries that are known for their religious fundamentalism with the results extrapolated across the entire Muslim demographic. Well done, no way that could lead to skewed results.

 

So you are discrediting Pew because the numbers didn't match your perceived world-view. Righteous. 

 

"The survey involved a total of more than 38,000 face-to-face interviews in 80 plus languages. It covered Muslims in 39 countries, which are divided into six regions in this report. Southern and Eastern Europe(Russia and the Balkans), Central Asia, Southeast Asia, South Asia, the Middle East and North Africa, and sub-Saharan Africa"

 

39 fundamentalist countries? Wow, that is a lot of countries and a lot of people. The survey didn't include Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iran, or India though. I wouldn't be surprised if the numbers were extrapolated even higher if they were.

 

Curious, do you even know how many Muslims live in Western Europe and the United States?

---

Here's another report done by Pew:


http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-w...ut-sharia/

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

Here's another report done by Pew:

http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-w...ut-sharia/

 

Same thing.

---

So you are discrediting Pew because the numbers didn't match your perceived world-view. Righteous. 

 

"The survey involved a total of more than 38,000 face-to-face interviews in 80 plus languages. It covered Muslims in 39 countries, which are divided into six regions in this report. Southern and Eastern Europe(Russia and the Balkans), Central Asia, Southeast Asia, South Asia, the Middle East and North Africa, and sub-Saharan Africa"

 

39 fundamentalist countries? Wow, that is a lot of countries and a lot of people. The survey didn't include Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iran, or India though. I wouldn't be surprised if the numbers were extrapolated even higher if they were.

 

Curious, do you even know how many Muslims live in Western Europe and the United States?

 

I agree with Jaguar Warrior on this point (and probably only this point). Pew are a respected organisation and they use reliable methods, and this data seems like a valid representation of Muslim opinion worldwide.

 

Where I disagree with Jaguar Warrior is in the interpretation of the data. He says "Out of 1.6 billion Muslims, 1.1 billion support Shariah law. Sorry, but if you support Shariah law, you support violence and oppression of non-Muslims".  His maths may be right, but to extrapolate that by supporting Sharia law you support 'violence and oppression of non-Muslims' is simply not true, as the report goes on to examine in great detail.

 

Without getting too far into the statistics, here is the summary:

 

At the same time, the survey finds that even in many countries where there is strong backing for sharia, most Muslims favor religious freedom for people of other faiths. In Pakistan, for example, three-quarters of Muslims say that non-Muslims are very free to practice their religion, and fully 96% of those who share this assessment say it is “a good thing.” Yet 84% of Pakistani Muslims favor enshrining sharia as official law. These seemingly divergent views are possible partly because most supporters of sharia in Pakistan – as in many other countries – think Islamic law should apply only to Muslims. Moreover, Muslims around the globe have differing understandings of what sharia means in practice.

 

Interesting stuff. As always the truth lies somewhere in the grey area, but people don't like the grey area. They like black or white.

---

lol ... looks like Shad Khan made it to America just in time. I guess he may not have family visiting for the holidays in the future.

 

Will Khan be allowed back in after a London game?

---

The sun's not yellow, it's chicken.

"THE CONSTITUTION!!! OBAMA IS WIPING HIS BACKSIDE WITH THE CONSTITUTION! I LOVE AND BELIEVE IN THE CONSTITUTION!! THE LEFT IS DESTROYING THE CONSTITUTION!!!"

 

Conservatives are so concerned with protecting the integrity of the constitution.

 

Until they aren't. 

---

Out of 1.6 billion Muslims, 1.1 billion support Shariah law. Sorry, but if you support Shariah law, you support violence and oppression of non-Muslims, women, and homosexuals and should not be allowed in. How can you not say it is NOT Islam vs The West when the overwhelming majority of Muslims support an anti-west ideology?


Did you know we shutdown immigration between the 1920s to the 1960s? We're we not Americans during that time frame? I don't think so, but you claim we were.


Did you know that Rand Paul just pushed a bill to shutdown immigration from Turkey (and also many other super-majority Muslim nations)? It isn't just Donald Trump calling for action.


Can't argue about your car wreck statement. I can't wait for automated cars.


Look, the immigration system sucks. There is no way to accurately vet people and prevent terrorists or potential terrorists from entering. The system needs to be improved. The action of sitting back and opening the flood gates is the extreme opposite of what we should be doing, but happens to be what our president and Hillary Clinton suggest we do. Maybe we can't stop all terrorists, but putting a pause on Islamic immigration until we get an accurate system developed is a logical thing to do. Will it stop all of them? Again, no it won't, but we have to do something. Whether it is blocking nations or blocking the religion, both are better than sitting on our hands.

Where are you getting your numbers from?


Sources.

---

The constitution does not grant foreign nationals the right to enter the country.

---

The constitution does not grant foreign nationals the right to enter the country.

Show me one person who's said that it does.

---

Show me one person who's said that it does.

 

 

I'm not certain, but I think that this is an attempt to say that.

 

"THE CONSTITUTION!!! OBAMA IS WIPING HIS BACKSIDE WITH THE CONSTITUTION! I LOVE AND BELIEVE IN THE CONSTITUTION!! THE LEFT IS DESTROYING THE CONSTITUTION!!!"

 

Conservatives are so concerned with protecting the integrity of the constitution.

 

Until they aren't. 

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

So my personal recap of this thread...

 

Trump supporters love him and agree with his "total shutdown of Muslims entering the U.S.", but they can't point to a realistic way of "how" to do that.  I posed a couple of questions that Trump supporters fail to answer, and I would venture to say that Trump himself couldn't answer them.  Yet, this is the candidate that they support?

 

That's not much different than the college aged students supporting Bernie Sanders because he promises "free education" and forgiving their student loans.

 

People these days support a candidate based on how much "free stuff" that they promise or "how they will change" our current situation.

 

How should terrorism realistically be approached?

How should the economy realistically be managed?

How should the immigration issue realistically be fixed?

 

Those are just a few questions that should be answered by the current candidates.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

I haven't followed his nonsense the last few days, has The Donald come up with a plan for determining who the Muslims are?

---

If something can corrupt you, you're corrupted already.
- Bob Marley


 

So my personal recap of this thread...

 

Trump supporters love him and agree with his "total shutdown of Muslims entering the U.S.", but they can't point to a realistic way of "how" to do that.  I posed a couple of questions that Trump supporters fail to answer, and I would venture to say that Trump himself couldn't answer them.  Yet, this is the candidate that they support?

 

That's not much different than the college aged students supporting Bernie Sanders because he promises "free education" and forgiving their student loans.

 

People these days support a candidate based on how much "free stuff" that they promise or "how they will change" our current situation.

 

How should terrorism realistically be approached?

How should the economy realistically be managed?

How should the immigration issue realistically be fixed?

 

Those are just a few questions that should be answered by the current candidates.

 

 

With all due respect, your proposed scenario presents its own absurdity.  

 

Trump said "We should ban the influx of Muslims into the country until we can figure out who these people are."

 

Responding that we can't even do that because we REALLY don't know who these people are doesn't actually poke holes in Trump's assertion, its an indictment of the immigration and customs system as a whole.  

 

Your basic premise, while provocative, doesn't take into account or illustrate the basic tenant of the TRUMPIAN position.  We should grant the privilege of entering this country on an affirmative basis.  By that it means that if we cannot concretely establish who a person is and certify that they have not been in contact with radical elements then they should not be allowed into the country.  

 

The intelligence required to keep this country safe, and the steps that Trump is advocating (not the ban, the process by which applicants should be vetted,) go a lot further than racial profiling.  

 

If someone wants to enter this country then we should be able to completely and affirmatively verify who they are.  We should also have real time intel about developing terror plots and suspected terror operatives to create a database that we can vet people against.  

 

Will there ever be a perfect system?  of course not.  

 

But in California we had a pakistany woman granted a k-1 Visa who had known terror affiliations in her own country and espoused radical views.  THAT'S UNACCEPTABLE!  

---

I haven't followed his nonsense the last few days, has The Donald come up with a plan for determining who the Muslims are?

He'll play the National Anthem and wait to see who explodes. Figuratively and literally.

---

I haven't followed his nonsense the last few days, has The Donald come up with a plan for determining who the Muslims are?

 

This is honestly more examples of a logical fallacy.  If we don't know who the hell someone is then they REALLY shouldn't be allowed into the country.  

 

Right now we have a situation where people with known terrorist ties openly talking about martyrdom on social media are granted Visa's to enter this country and kill innocent Americans.  THAT should be the outrage.  

---

Thank you for the love, but looking for a "win scenario" is exactly what I am looking for in a Presidential candidate.  People love Donald Trump because he wants to "ban Muslims".  My question presents the problem of "how" and also illustrates that there is no logical way to do that.  The same could be said about his "round them all up and send them back" rhetoric regarding illegals.  It might sound good to his fan base, but when the question of "how" is brought up, it's usually "deer in the headlights".

 

The topic of this thread is Trump wants to shut down Muslims entering the U.S..  I presented two different questions/scenarios and there still is no valid answer.

Ok, I'll bite.  Ban ALL immigration until we have taken care of our own citizens.  When everyone in the US is working, when government assistance is at near zero and employer's are desperate for more workers then re-open immigration.  Charity begins at home.

---

Original Season Ticket Holder - Retired  1995 - 2020


At some point you just have to let go of what you thought should happen and live in what is happening.