4 ms·

Well, both sides clearly can't be right. If you look at Trump's actual policies, you'll see he wants to ban Muslim immigration, based on the results of an opt-

Well, both sides clearly can't be right. If you look at Trump's actual policies, you'll see he wants to ban Muslim immigration, based on the results of an opt-in internet poll: https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trump-statement-on-preventing-muslim-immigration https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trump-... So, his policies seem to be unconstitutional, racist, and based on dubious science. I think must people voted for Trump because he had a great campaign, and as Scott Adams says he is a great persuader. I infer from Adams' post that he thinks the anti-trump protesters are protesting based on beliefs rather than facts. However that's simply not true. The facts have been presented by Trump himself in the campaign promises on his website. I'm thinking that Adams himself might be engaging in some cognitive dissonance. What would be the reason for that? He's clearly highly intelligent, and understands that Trump is a great persuader. Could he himself have fallen for the persuasion? Or does he have some beef with Hillary which allows him to ignore Trump's nasty policies? (Again, more cognitive dissonance).

TrevorJ 10y ago
Playing devils' advocate, should we not reserve the right to screen immigration based on the ideology of those entering? Would it be ok to, say, deny entry to a Neo-Nazi supremacist wanting to immigrate from Norway?
- custos 10y ago
  Screening would be fine. Banning outright would not be. And the screening must be universal. Not just based on whatever ideology used by violent extremist currently is.
  - TrevorJ 10y ago
    I agree. The real question then is do we have enough information about individuals in order to screen on a case by case basis, and what rubric should we use to determine who should be screened out.
    - custos 10y ago
      I've heard good things about Israel's security in this aspect. Has to be decent with all their enemies right next door instead of half a world away. Unfortunately I'm not familiar with it or know if it would be viable. Review publicly posted social media accounts for red flags, trained experts interviewing and talking to people. Or just admit casualties from foreign terrorists are such a low risk and stop freaking out over it would be good too. Cost spent on security should be proportional to lives saved in relation to spending on prevention of other causes of death to be honest. How much do we spend on national highway safety (locally + federal) / lives lost in traffic fatalities * lives lost in terrorist attacks. Don't spend more than that.
      - cpncrunch 10y ago
        Even Israel aren't banning Muslims outright, as Trump says he wants to do. For sure, some of his policies on immigration make sense. The problem is that he is at the extreme end of the scale, similar to UKIP, National Front, Wilders, etc. People have legitimate concerns about immigration. Whether those fears are real or imagined, the government needs to do something to address them. When they don't bother, that's when the people get fed up and then elect someone who will shake things up. That seems to be what is happening in the UK and Europe at the moment.
- xsmasher 10y ago
  Specific ideology, sure, but banning all theists from immigrating would be too broad of a brush. So would banning all Muslims.
custos 10y ago
This is the argument I keep giving. Everytime I explain to someone my fears of him are based in things he said I get two different responses: 1. Incredulous, almost as if they pretend it didn't happen. Comparing it to republicans freaking out over Obama taking everyones guns. When I remind them Obama never said he would take everyones guns, but Trump has said he will do the things that are major red flags to me.... They just brush it off as inconsequential. 2. They say no president actually keeps the promises they make in their campaign. Which is even more confusing because then why did you vote for him? These people I assume are the "not hillary" people. Trump told everyone what they wanted to hear, even if it conflicted with something else he said. I guess some form of confirmation bias comes into play where they heard what that liked, ignored the contradictions they didn't and voted for him anyways. Which seems insane to me.

TrevorJ 10y ago

Playing devils' advocate, should we not reserve the right to screen immigration based on the ideology of those entering? Would it be ok to, say, deny entry to a Neo-Nazi supremacist wanting to immigrate from Norway?

custos 10y ago
Screening would be fine. Banning outright would not be. And the screening must be universal. Not just based on whatever ideology used by violent extremist currently is.
- TrevorJ 10y ago
  I agree. The real question then is do we have enough information about individuals in order to screen on a case by case basis, and what rubric should we use to determine who should be screened out.
  - custos 10y ago
    I've heard good things about Israel's security in this aspect. Has to be decent with all their enemies right next door instead of half a world away. Unfortunately I'm not familiar with it or know if it would be viable. Review publicly posted social media accounts for red flags, trained experts interviewing and talking to people. Or just admit casualties from foreign terrorists are such a low risk and stop freaking out over it would be good too. Cost spent on security should be proportional to lives saved in relation to spending on prevention of other causes of death to be honest. How much do we spend on national highway safety (locally + federal) / lives lost in traffic fatalities * lives lost in terrorist attacks. Don't spend more than that.
    - cpncrunch 10y ago
      Even Israel aren't banning Muslims outright, as Trump says he wants to do. For sure, some of his policies on immigration make sense. The problem is that he is at the extreme end of the scale, similar to UKIP, National Front, Wilders, etc. People have legitimate concerns about immigration. Whether those fears are real or imagined, the government needs to do something to address them. When they don't bother, that's when the people get fed up and then elect someone who will shake things up. That seems to be what is happening in the UK and Europe at the moment.
xsmasher 10y ago
Specific ideology, sure, but banning all theists from immigrating would be too broad of a brush. So would banning all Muslims.

custos 10y ago

This is the argument I keep giving. Everytime I explain to someone my fears of him are based in things he said I get two different responses: 1. Incredulous, almost as if they pretend it didn't happen. Comparing it to republicans freaking out over Obama taking everyones guns. When I remind them Obama never said he would take everyones guns, but Trump has said he will do the things that are major red flags to me.... They just brush it off as inconsequential. 2. They say no president actually keeps the promises they make in their campaign. Which is even more confusing because then why did you vote for him? These people I assume are the "not hillary" people. Trump told everyone what they wanted to hear, even if it conflicted with something else he said. I guess some form of confirmation bias comes into play where they heard what that liked, ignored the contradictions they didn't and voted for him anyways. Which seems insane to me.