By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - So, Trump's ban on certain nationalities is in effect.

 

Your opinion on the ban

Good! 145 35.02%
 
Get rid of this as fast as possible. 200 48.31%
 
Needs more exceptions 25 6.04%
 
List needs to be redone 44 10.63%
 
Total:414
Peh on 29 January 2017
Lucas-Rio said:
Peh said:

So, hypothetically, if you vote against someone who wants to go to war, you won't oppose him, because he won?

If he is elected clearly stating that he will do the war then yes. That's the democracy. People vote and select a leader to do what he announced he would do. The check and balance being the parliament.

Not angry liberals setting fires in the street.

Wow. You are really fast at betraying your own principles.



Intel Core i7 8700K | 32 GB DDR 4 PC 3200 | ROG STRIX Z370-F Gaming | RTX 3090 FE| Crappy Monitor| HTC Vive Pro :3

Around the Network
Lucas-Rio on 29 January 2017
Peh said:
Lucas-Rio said:

If he is elected clearly stating that he will do the war then yes. That's the democracy. People vote and select a leader to do what he announced he would do. The check and balance being the parliament.

Not angry liberals setting fires in the street.

Wow. You are really fast at betraying your own principles.

This is not betrayal, you can still have your ideas, but you can't protest when democracy has spoken so recently.



Scoobes on 29 January 2017
Lucas-Rio said:
Peh said:

So, hypothetically, if you vote against someone who wants to go to war, you won't oppose him, because he won?

If he is elected clearly stating that he will do the war then yes. That's the democracy. People vote and select a leader to do what he announced he would do. The check and balance being the parliament.

Not angry liberals setting fires in the street.

Really don't think you understand what a democracy is. Just because you win an election doesn't mean you have to put up and shut up for the whole of that individual/party's term. 

Winning an election doesn't mean you get free reign over all policies. You don't stop campaigning if you disagree with his policies. You debate, you protest and you oppose. That's the whole point of an oppposition party; to hold the governing party to account. Protesting is a way for people to show both parties how they feel before they act. 

 @ bolded

No one likes that, but considering the numbers protesting, how many are actually engaging in criminal activity?




Get your Portable ID!

areason on 29 January 2017
Puppyroach said:
For all the arguments I hear here it's quite fascinating that everyone is asking whether or not their respective country need to take in refugees, not whether or not the refugees need some place to flee to. In every single nation we hear the same types of people claim that their nation cannot take in any more refugees, that society will fall apart and all kinds of depressing predictions. So where should they go?

The world isn't fair, nor is it perfect. If it was we woudn't have millions if not billions in poverty. 

If you try to help everyone you will fail, there are other solutions to the refugee crisis such as ending the war and creating safe zones. But when people just take them on and any opposition gets called racist then those solutions never see the light of day. 



Peh on 29 January 2017
Lucas-Rio said:
Puppyroach said:
For all the arguments I hear here it's quite fascinating that everyone is asking whether or not their respective country need to take in refugees, not whether or not the refugees need some place to flee to. In every single nation we hear the same types of people claim that their nation cannot take in any more refugees, that society will fall apart and all kinds of depressing predictions. So where should they go?

Maybe they should stay where they are ? I know it's not popular but taking them is a huge burden and risk.

Only the one who are threatened specifically because they are known should be accepted and only if they have zero links with any violent faction.

How do you determine who is who? How do you check those backrounds of the refugees without letting them into your country?



Intel Core i7 8700K | 32 GB DDR 4 PC 3200 | ROG STRIX Z370-F Gaming | RTX 3090 FE| Crappy Monitor| HTC Vive Pro :3

Around the Network
areason on 29 January 2017
Scoobes said:
Lucas-Rio said:

If he is elected clearly stating that he will do the war then yes. That's the democracy. People vote and select a leader to do what he announced he would do. The check and balance being the parliament.

Not angry liberals setting fires in the street.

Really don't think you understand what a democracy is. Just because you win an election doesn't mean you have to put up and shut up for the whole of that individual/party's term. 

Winning an election doesn't mean you get free reign over all policies. You don't stop campaigning if you disagree with his policies. You debate, you protest and you oppose. That's the whole point of an oppposition party; to hold the governing party to account. Protesting is a way for people to show both parties how they feel before they act. 

 @ bolded

No one likes that, but considering the numbers protesting, how many are actually engaging in criminal activity?

Blocking a whole airport terminal because people are "outraged" isn't protesting it is organized descent. 



areason on 29 January 2017
Peh said:
Lucas-Rio said:

Maybe they should stay where they are ? I know it's not popular but taking them is a huge burden and risk.

Only the one who are threatened specifically because they are known should be accepted and only if they have zero links with any violent faction.

How do you determine who is who? How do you check those backrounds of the refugees without letting them into your country?

By your logic people should arrive to a country and then apply for a visa. 



StarOcean on 29 January 2017
Lucas-Rio said:
Peh said:

Wow. You are really fast at betraying your own principles.

This is not betrayal, you can still have your ideas, but you can't protest when democracy has spoken so recently.

"You can still have your thoughts as long as you obey your lord and savior President. He has free reign to do what he wants unchallenged because he's so new."



Peh on 29 January 2017
Lucas-Rio said:
Peh said:

Wow. You are really fast at betraying your own principles.

This is not betrayal, you can still have your ideas, but you can't protest when democracy has spoken so recently.

Well, then your idea of a democracy is flawed. Because a democracy should always have an opposition. Some one who runs the country shouldn't have unlimited power of doing whatever he/she likes. That would be a dictatorship. A core feature of a democracy is to have protests and opposing principles which are all under the law of freedom of speech.



Intel Core i7 8700K | 32 GB DDR 4 PC 3200 | ROG STRIX Z370-F Gaming | RTX 3090 FE| Crappy Monitor| HTC Vive Pro :3

naruball on 29 January 2017
Lucas-Rio said:
Alkibiádēs said:

Hitler was elected democratically and he promised to take care of the Jews, so that means you agree with the Holocaust, or at the very least the maltreatment of Jews. He was elected after all, and he did what he promised. Can't you see how flawed that logic is?

Hitler's mention in a topic = Godwin point

Please be reasonnable.

Call it a Godwin point or whatever you want. It doesn't change the fact that you didn't answer the question.

Also, interesting how you single out liberals who won't shut up about Trump when for 8 years all Republicans did was tell us how Obama was the worst thing that ever happened to America. I assume you told them, too, that they should shut up because he was elected by the people, right?

Not a rhetorical question, btw. I expect an answer.