**** Elections thread *****

[Poopadoop]

NO! It's aimed at countries where governments are either not centralized, hence they cannot provide the necessary vetting data, or more simply, their governments are just not cooperative.

Yup, it's aimed only at muslim countries. The fact that they haven't banned every single muslim country doesn't mean it's not a muslim ban, it just means it hasn't been universally applied.

Another interpretation of the 'centralized gov't' thing is that those excluded countries are coincidentally the same countries where Trump has economic interests.

You can read the guy's mind now?

Have you learned to read? I said 'I imagine', not 'I know'. See the difference?

Holy shit man, in what universe is Giuliani a "far-righter"? How in the world could such a person be elected mayor in NYC?

Lol, of course he is. I don't know how he got elected frankly, cause he seems like kind of a nutjob.

Now you're reading judge's minds too? If this judge didn't grant the restraining order, they would have tried again until they found a judge who would.

Do you know how many judges they had to try? I'm guessing it wasn't a large number. (And again, just so we're clear, I'm guessing, not saying I know)

It's not working out well in Canada. They tried to pass legislation to ban hijabs. That doesn't sound like a place where Muslims are very welcome.

The former, conservative (far right) gov't tried to ban them. Judge overruled them. Sound familiar?

Current gov't is very welcoming of refugees.

And I don't know what you mean by "working out well". How do you know that everyone admitted into canada is one of the "good guys"? The lack of an overt attack doesn't validate the quality of security.

Lol, well what criteria do you want to apply to the quality of security? If the lack of an overt attack doesn't count as evidence, I don't know what does.

It only took ONE guy to get into a truck and drive over a sidewalk full of people. That means if you only admit ONE immigrant into your country, there is a non-zero chance you'll be attacked.

I understand the argument. Like I said, it's a question of how much of a risk you're willing to accept for the sake of helping refugees.

Who says we're unwilling to help the world? We just want 3 months to help ourselves develop the best security possible for our citizens,

Ok, so you only want to stop helping the refugees for 3 months (for now). Got it.

and then we'll open the doors back up to the world again.

We'll see.

I swear, every time a liberal argument is thwarted, they invent five new ones out of thin air. Preposterous assumptions, mind reading, conjecture, international disdain.....what else ya got?

You're talking about yourself here, not me.