Jump to content
talkfootball365
  • Welcome to talkfootball365!

    The better place to talk football.

Donald Trump


football forums

Recommended Posts

A true 'Muslim ban' would include Bangladesh, Turkey, Indoenesia, Malaysia, Azerbaijan, India, Nigeria, Algeria, Morocco, Afghanistan, China, Russia, and a few others I'm sure. 

Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia, Yemen and Iraq roughly count for 221 million people. Out of the 1.6 billion Muslims in the world that accounts for about what 14% of Muslims. So no, it isn't a Muslim ban, it's a selective Muslim ban. To call it a 'Muslim ban' implying that all Muslims are banned is a lie and pure laziness.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
9 hours ago, Spike said:

A true 'Muslim ban' would include Bangladesh, Turkey, Indoenesia, Malaysia, Azerbaijan, India, Nigeria, Algeria, Morocco, Afghanistan, China, Russia, and a few others I'm sure. 

Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia, Yemen and Iraq roughly count for 221 million people. Out of the 1.6 billion Muslims in the world that accounts for about what 14% of Muslims. So no, it isn't a Muslim ban, it's a selective Muslim ban. To call it a 'Muslim ban' implying that all Muslims are banned is a lie and pure laziness.

 

 

It's an arbitrary Muslim ban written by Steve Bannon, who doesn't know a whole lot about Islam other than he hates Iran. If he had stuck to countries of people who had attacked US soil and not focused on arbitrary Muslim majority countries, courts would not strike down/suspend his ban.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

It's an arbitrary Muslim ban written by Steve Bannon, who doesn't know a whole lot about Islam other than he hates Iran. If he had stuck to countries of people who had attacked US soil and not focused on arbitrary Muslim majority countries, courts would not strike down/suspend his ban.

Blink-you'll-miss-it. xD

Bannon removed from NSC. He remains as Chief Strategist, though.

I think I cannot deal with such timescale for a cabinet reshuffle for much longer.  Off-the-charts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

It's an arbitrary Muslim ban written by Steve Bannon, who doesn't know a whole lot about Islam other than he hates Iran. If he had stuck to countries of people who had attacked US soil and not focused on arbitrary Muslim majority countries, courts would not strike down/suspend his ban.

The only thing that Bannon hates is that he could be richer and more powerful. He'd be all over Islam if it empowered him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Spike said:

The only thing that Bannon hates is that he could be richer and more powerful. He'd be all over Islam if it empowered him.

He's a vile alt-right (aka "white supremacist") who was successful as a globalist capitalist (which I think is hilarious in a sense) at Goldman Sachs and an exceptional propagandist for Breitbart. He's a vile man and if Trump wanted his popularity to rise, he would completely remove Bannon from being his "Chief Strategist." Him being removed from the NSC is a good thing for people who aren't pro-white supremacy, though. People like Bannon and Jeff Sessions belong nowhere near the influential position they have with the President of the United States of America.

The one thing I think Trump has done right since becoming president is condemning the gas attack in Syria. I assumed he would stay silent or parrot the Kremlin line of how it was Syrian rebels (who used aircraft to conduct the gas attack...). He didn't mention any form of response, though, or truly condemn Assad/Putin. But the UN Ambassador did go on the offensive with Russia's role in the attack.

Regardless of where you stand politically, all reasonable people should be in agreement that the use of chemical weapons is fucking abhorrent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

He's a vile alt-right (aka "white supremacist") who was successful as a globalist capitalist (which I think is hilarious in a sense) at Goldman Sachs and an exceptional propagandist for Breitbart. He's a vile man and if Trump wanted his popularity to rise, he would completely remove Bannon from being his "Chief Strategist." Him being removed from the NSC is a good thing for people who aren't pro-white supremacy, though. People like Bannon and Jeff Sessions belong nowhere near the influential position they have with the President of the United States of America.

The one thing I think Trump has done right since becoming president is condemning the gas attack in Syria. I assumed he would stay silent or parrot the Kremlin line of how it was Syrian rebels (who used aircraft to conduct the gas attack...). He didn't mention any form of response, though, or truly condemn Assad/Putin. But the UN Ambassador did go on the offensive with Russia's role in the attack.

Regardless of where you stand politically, all reasonable people should be in agreement that the use of chemical weapons is fucking abhorrent.

He isn't really 'alt-right' just Breitbart. Many testimonies from people like Ben Shapiro (vehemently against the alt-right) are more than evidence enough for me. Not sure if that is better or worse but the man on a personal level isn't alt-right, just the audience he caters towards is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Harry said:

This, and the piece referenced, are interesting articles on the decades-long descent of the GOP into howling madness

 

 

You won't find a journal more biased than Fusion. It is literally aimed towards millennials and Hispanics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not disagreeing but would prefer you to refute the articles content rather than dismiss it based on where it was published. 

My main bone with it is the unsaid implication that the opposing party aren't also guilty of similar traits albeit to a lesser degree. Other than that it hits the nail on the head for the most part. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Harry said:

I'm not disagreeing but would prefer you to refute the articles content rather than dismiss it based on where it was published. 

My main bone with it is the unsaid implication that the opposing party aren't also guilty of similar traits albeit to a lesser degree. Other than that it hits the nail on the head for the most part. 

Well for starters the language used in the article is incredibly condescending and itself is guilty of racist shoehorning. Most of the language is opinion pieced 'Donald Trump is 70 years old. He has always, clearly, been an incoherent thinker, contradictory and prone to self-gratifying delusions', it doesn't say why he is that way, just that we should believe that to be the truth. It then uses accusations to justify his 'misogyny'  despite the fact, they were nothing more and if accusations made a criminal, then the prison system would be laughing to the banks.. Then it goes on to site a source that claims 'birtherism is rascist'. It then snides the entire Fox demographic as 'foolish old people'. The article doesn't say anything besides scathing insults hidden behind a facade of 'wake up sheeple!'. Terrible article.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's just more sensationalism from one side of the coin, you'd read the exact same article with the opinions flipped on another journal. Worthless trite that belongs in the trash with Breitbart and Infowars.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Fairy In Boots said:

It does make you think, I know one thing military intervention in Syria will not benefit the Syrian people long term.

Syria's already experiencing foreign military intervention. It's not going great for the Syrian people. So that's true, it's not good for them long term. Or short term.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Syria's already experiencing foreign military intervention. It's not going great for the Syrian people. So that's true, it's not good for them long term. Or short term.

We shouldn't get involved, Trump was of that view originally. I personally think it's a complete and utter clusterfuck i'm dubious as to who the rebels are in Syria, I don't think the pentagon knows either but they want him to let them loose as war is good for business.

What are we going to achieve, we get rid of the Assad's then the sunni's clean house after we've gone and we've got

a) the war and cost of war both monetarily and as a public relations exercise.

b) the ethnic cleansing after we go

c) another fucking state like afghan, Iraq

d) they'll move into Lebanon next 

The smart move is to let Assad win and stop arming the cunting rebels.

Regarding PJW, he talks a lot of shit but he made a fantastic point earlier, the media and members of society who said he'll be a "hitler type war mad nutter are now the cunts egging him on" he's threatened  to stop supporting Trump if they go in, i'm the same although I know it will be the neo con cunts infesting the Washington machine that will drive it as apposed to Trump. For me PJW is the only one talking sense on this subject it seems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

Sign up or subscribe to remove this ad.


×
×
  • Create New...