The Politics Thread (PLAY NICELY!)

it also affects us citizens as you may have seen on social media of late

Thought it was already established that it's not a Muslim ban, but the public and some people here seems to disagree.

If you haven't noticed, ISIS is just conforming to the feelings generated by uninformed protesters.

It doesn't f*** matter what you call it. 200+ million people are being discriminated. Most of them are Muslim and when the western public "misunderstands" it as Muslim ban, it likely also will be "misunderstood" by Muslim people affected by it.

Muslim ban is a shorthand that makes everyone understand wtf we are talking about. I am opened to suggestions for other names.

So explain ISIS behavior. Why terror attacks? Why try to create hatred? What do they gain from somebody killing a handful of people in Berlin on a Christmas market?
What reasons do people who throw their life away to do such attacks have to do it? What gets people to do such a thing?
What reaction is ISIS getting for such an attack? Is it hard to predict the reaction to such an attack for them? If they can predict the reaction than does that mean they maybe want that reaction?

Also why do security experts who worked for the CIA, among many other rather informed people, agree with "uninformed protesters"?
And have the jihadists predicted this many years ago? They've been pretty public about this strategy since over 10 years and it seems pretty obvious it has been a great success for them.

Imprisoned terrorists have always been an excuse for other terrorists to attack, shouldn't we free them all to stop the rising of more terrorism? Should our countries ask permission to isis or even consider the feelings of people from other countries for new laws?

By the way, I asked for a US green card and they didn't give it to me for arbitrary reasons. Immigration laws are very unfair almost everywhere, this tiem the difference was Trump's signature.

I thought I didn't have to state that the stupid guy who explodes himself doesn't win a thing, but the leaders who send them win both in money and in power. What has every soldier ever sent to the front line won?
So as in any other place on Earth, a decent amount of evil people and lots of stupids behind them.

Jihadists predicted many years ago the hegemony of islam over the world. They also predicted that their suicide friends would go to heaven.

How can I make money by brain washing somebody into doing a suicide attack onto strangers in a far away country?
Explain how that works in more detail. I agree it works, but how exactly do you think it works?
Financing a high profile terror attack costs money and yields no direct income back. Where is the money and power coming from?

We should treat them fairly and according to our own human rights. Everything else is hypocrisy, another thing that helps the terrorist agenda.

Yes? That should be obvious?

You are oversimplifying it a lot. ISIS is funded primarely by Saudi Arabia, as well as by Turkey and the US. Interests involved concern redistribution of power in the middle east and mitigation of russian influence, something that failed miserably due to the suni-shia conflict, the chechen war, and islamic extremism that gave birth to DAESH. They are getting payed specifically to sell oil to certain exporters exclusively, however what ISIS has in equipment and funding, it lacks in numbers. In reality the orgaization is highly relying on converting what civilians, mainly locals, but as well as europeans. This joins up with the idea of a Jihad, a war in the name of Allahu. By using terror techniques, DAESH scares the average Joe and indirectly causes social segregation and stigmatization of muslims. Combine that with the immigration flow, and you have rise of nationalism and seperatism all over Europe. Decentralization of politics means that it will be harder and it will take longer for a western intervention, and it becomes more likely that the US leads such intervention, thus claiming greater influence over the future(and exports) of the region. By blowing up and terrorizing people, one makes it more likely for his boss to get payed for a well done job. Which is why the auctions undertaken by Trump right now are the worst possible approach, with the least possible impact.(afterall the US is 12 000 kilometers and an ocean away, and the EU is just 4 000)

Well said

May I suggest the very factual name, the "Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015"?

Also, unrelated but stupid...

hahaha x) ok fair point but did you look at your own chart?

I am not sure of the connection between this ban and terrorism.

Why does ISIS behave they way they do? I am no expert on terrorist psychology so like any American I googled it (I am an exciting person with many amazing pastimes ).

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-winner-effect/201408/isis-savagery-explained

After reading this and other links, I am still don't see a connection. So I looked up travel bans and the resulting effects. I saw a list of issues, mainly economic in nature, but nothing to support the spread of terrorism (at least no articles I could take seriously). USA has used bans in the past (Chinese, communist, refugees during WW2, etc). This didn't spread communism or create additional tension with China.

Honestly after reading about this IMO, this has very little to do with Muslims or terrorism. It more international politics than anything else. Generally, none of the nations banned are considered friendly (besides Iraq's Kurdish region, but the rest of government controlled Iraq is seen as an Iran proxy). I think this is more about a proxy conflict with Iran and Saudi Arabia. They throw Somalia and Sudan into the mix because most American know of Somalia, and Sudan because of some interior African Union politics.

Maybe some European counties should ban Americans. Give us a taste of our own medicine. You can do it Switzerland. We will miss your cheese.

You do realize, doing the math exactly, that Wikipedia has in fact made itself a joke instead of a source and a biased piece of generic liberal media, because those aren't real numbers, and he hasn't had a whole year term.

A real source, would have put "N/A" in the blank, because it's simply a Tatsu-funny damned-lie, that Trump has passed 297 Executive Orders a year.

Hey everyone, did any of you know "Trump has actually passed 297 executive orders each and every year he was in office"??? No? Well, nobody does. Because it's not true!

Wikipedia vandalism happens to everybody at some point. I wouldn't call it shitty liberal media on that basis.

Wikipedia is as reliable as it has ever been. Almost always unless the page is currently popular, then not at all.

True. On that note, it's a "semi-protected" page-state, else I'd "vandalize" it back, and I left a comment telling them it's a shitty thing to put into a ******* chart. Really do feel, based on bias, that they'll leave it as is. Would be genuinely surprised if they changed it based on common sense above "funny and self-serving". People tend to stick with that which tickles their own purposes these days, damned be anyone who isn't them.

It seems some people don't even understand simple maths on this thread.

Assuming you're talking about the wikipedia thing, using a formula to make something look worse than it is while staying factually correct is almost as sleazy as lying, just way more clever.

The table had all the data so assuming it all factually true its not sleazy at all, you just need to not jump to conclusions when looking at data and statistics. The table may have already existed and just had trump added.

Someone jumping to a conclusion using the table, then trying to make point with it is kinda stupid.

Yes you can call the column misleading when looking at trump since the it more likely that a president will issue a high rate of orders in there first week or so in office.

1) It's factually false. He does not average 300 executive orders a year, given he's not been in office a year. The table can show N/A while the president's "years in office" (also on table) show 0.03 years.

2) EDIT: You know about the "first 100 days" policy. Tatsu, whom boasts he lived in the States, apparently does NOT know about the "first 100 days", which Obama and most every other president also had.

3:

(ಠ_ಠ)ᔐ☝

i don't know how much more obvious it could have been but I was just laughing at how funny it seems looking at it right now. trophy's apparently the only one who doesn't get that this is perfectly fine factual stats that will ease down to the level of the rest as the term progresses. it's just funny just how many he placed in his first week.