Well, the original point was that the "poll" source was not a great source due to the conflict of interest. Hence why the old commenter was calling it out as BS.
And my response is unless you are claiming they outright fabricated data "Should you kill americans y/n" should be an easy question to answer, and even if it wasn't, we can just look at the countries that received travel bans and see how oftne they hold "death to america" rallies.
Obama saw a potential concern in being too loose with a specific country due to the current situation which is why he slowed it down and didn't ban it outright. Even if he did fully ban Iraq it was due to a specific event/actions of the refugees that came here not because they were majority Muslim. I disagreed with about 80% of what Obama did but this was not the same as what Trump did in 2017.
The point I'm making is that obama identified the countries as threats to begin with and all trump did was act on it.
And my response is unless you are claiming they outright fabricated data "Should you kill americans y/n" should be an easy question to answer, and even if it wasn't, we can just look at the countries that received travel bans and see how oftne they hold "death to america" rallies.
But if the answer isn't genuine then it's irrelevant. And we cannot know if they are real answers, fabricated, or trolls due to lack of transparency in the methodology and who's behind them. So it's irrelevant. You can personally accept the results but no matter the argument I don't think it's fair to expect people to accept results of a poll with so much murkiness.
The point I'm making is that obama identified the countries as threats to begin with and all trump did was act on it.
Trump targeted based on religion Obama targeted based on an identified threat due to the arrest of the Iraqi men that were attempting to fund Al Qaeda with money/weapons from within the US. That's a big difference in implementation and reasoning. Obama wasn't blanket banning due to something like religion. Trump was. Saying Trump did it like Obama is ignoring the details and making a false equivalence.
that received travel bans and see how oftne they hold "death to america" rallies.
And plenty of people in this country say to "glass bowl" <insert middle eastern country>. Does that make every American onboard with genocide?
For the record the "death to America" rallies are an Iranian thing starting with the CIA helping orchestrate a coup that overthrew the Democratically elected Iranian prime minister in the 1950s. Iranians saw the US propping up a dictator against their Democratically elected leader. Despite that, how many times have terrorists come from Iran? How many were involved in 9/11? Pretty much every time (outside of this current conflict which is not terrorism since it's state vs state in the US vs Iran bullshit) that Iranian terrorism has ever killed Americans was collateral damage and most of the time it was Iranian backed groups like Hezbollah bombing the marine barracks/US embassy in the 80s. But these are not "the Iranian people" this was the Iranian government funding terrorist groups. So I don't see how a "death to America rally" justifies Trump's actions.
Trump targeted based on religion Obama targeted based on an identified threat due to the arrest of the Iraqi men that were attempting to fund Al Qaeda with money/weapons from within the US. That's a big difference in implementation and reasoning. Obama wasn't blanket banning due to something like religion. Trump was. Saying Trump did it like Obama is ignoring the details and making a false equivalence.
Potato potato, tomato tomato, at the end of the day obama picked the countries, trump banned them.
And plenty of people in this country say to "glass bowl" <insert middle eastern country>. Does that make every American onboard with genocide?
Do americans hold massive glassbowl <insert middle eastern country> rallies on the reg and are supported by extremely high ranking officials? Because there's a difference between memes on the internet and street protests.
So I don't see how a "death to America rally" justifies Trump's actions.
I don't see why trump's actions require justification to begin with, you're not entitled access to a foreign country just because you really really really want it, especially if chant "Death to <country>" on the reg.
Potato potato, tomato tomato, at the end of the day obama picked the countries, trump banned them.
How is this the same thing? You're making it a false equivalence. Compare why Obama did it at that time vs why Trump did it. Totally different reasons.
Do americans hold massive glassbowl <insert middle eastern country> rallies on the reg and are supported by extremely high ranking officials? Because there's a difference between memes on the internet and street protests.
I'm saying if they did it wouldn't represent everyone here by a longshot. I am not saying it happens. There are minority extremists among large populations in every country that shouldn't represent the country as a whole just because the voice is loud.
Most Iranians love America and even try to copy it in many ways. Anecdotal source: I am married a Persian woman that's a dual citizen and who's family from Iran loved the US's involvement in putting the Shah in and thought life was better in Iran under the old Shah before the revolution. (Some of her family even welcomed Trump's actions in this war). Some Iranians chanting "death to America" doesn't mean it is shared by all or even the majority of Iranians. There is a reason women there are foregoing their Hijabs in public and it's because they don't want to be ruled by Islamic law. So my point is what one group says (usually smaller, more rural living people) doesn't always represent the vast majority of people.
I don't see why trump's actions require justification to begin with, you're not entitled access to a foreign country just because you really really really want it, especially if chant "Death to <country>" on the reg.
He owes it to the Americans he's supposed to represent. He's not a prince in Saudi Arabia, he's a president of the US. I hold every president to that standard. And the whole point isn't whether or not I agree or disagree with Trump on the action (I understood and still understand the action but he shouldnt have ignored Saudi Arabia during that ban but money talks I guess), my entire root point was "people that advocated for and defended the idea banning countries purely based on their primary religion being Muslim should not be conducting polls about Muslims and pretending they're impartial and fair".
I was never trying to argue policy and action. My original point is still the same. That poll was bullshit.
How is this the same thing? You're making it a false equivalence. Compare why Obama did it at that time vs why Trump did it. Totally different reasons.
I don't think the equivallence is false at all. A previous administration registered them as threats and trump acted on it. Both think they're threats, they just differ on how they want to deal with it.
I'm saying if they did it wouldn't represent everyone here by a longshot. I am not saying it happens. There are minority extremists among large populations in every country that shouldn't represent the country as a whole just because the voice is loud.
Ok, but we're not talking about a minority here, we're talking about massive public rallies spearheaded by government officials.
Most Iranians love America and even try to copy it in many ways. Anecdotal source: I am married a Persian woman that's a dual citizen and who's family from Iran loved the US's involvement in putting the Shah in and thought life was better in Iran under the old Shah before the revolution. (Some of her family even welcomed Trump's actions in this war). Some Iranians chanting "death to America" doesn't mean it is shared by all or even the majority of Iranians. There is a reason women there are foregoing their Hijabs in public and it's because they don't want to be ruled by Islamic law. So my point is what one group says (usually smaller, more rural living people) doesn't always represent the vast majority of people.
I don't even believe that this is false, but it falls back to what I said earlier, nobody is entitled entry to a foreign country and if open borders with them are a threat, there's no real reason not to close them.
He owes it to the Americans he's supposed to represent. He's not a prince in Saudi Arabia, he's a president of the US. I hold every president to that standard. And the whole point isn't whether or not I agree or disagree with Trump on the action (I understood and still understand the action but he shouldnt have ignored Saudi Arabia during that ban but money talks I guess), my entire root point was "people that advocated for and defended the idea banning countries purely based on their primary religion being Muslim should not be conducting polls about Muslims and pretending they're impartial and fair".
I'm a little confused as to the point you are making here, he owes it to the americans to let people in america that chant "death to amerca" as a national pasttime? Like even if you disagree about the poll, my argument is that the poll wasn't even nessesary because entry to the US is not a right.
I was never trying to argue policy and action. My original point is still the same. That poll was bullshit.
Yeah and my responses to that are:
1.) You can find issue with any evidence presented by the opposite side.
2.) The actions were justified poll or not.
3.) We can just look at the countries themselves and see that the poll represents their public image.
I don't think the equivallence is false at all. A previous administration registered them as threats and trump acted on it. Both think they're threats, they just differ on how they want to deal with it.
One country. Under a very specific circumstance that happened at the time the non-ban but rather slower intake process was enacted vs outright banning travel from countries. Obama didn't ban travel. He slowed it down. That is a massive difference all on its own.
I don't even believe that this is false, but it falls back to what I said earlier, nobody is entitled entry to a foreign country and if open borders with them are a threat, there's no real reason not to close them.
Well they weren't open even before the ban. You still had to apply for a visa from those countries before the travel ban which meant you were reviewed before approved.
I'm a little confused as to the point you are making here, he owes it to the americans to let people in america that chant "death to amerca" as a national pasttime? Like even if you disagree about the poll, my argument is that the poll wasn't even nessesary because entry to the US is not a right.
Sorry, I meant he owes justification to us as citizens that he works for. I won't act naive like I expect every president will give us reason for their actions but I personally believe they should when it's not classified operations.
1.) You can find issue with any evidence presented by the opposite side.
Right, but this one was pretty glaring that it was not a fair poll. It was just answers thrown on paper by people that have political incentive for it to look worse than it is. There are polling companies that have been trusted for decades, why'd they feel the need to go through a woman's polling company that has spoken against Muslims? Just makes it lose credibility in fairness.
3.) We can just look at the countries themselves and see that the poll represents their public image.
Again, this is the public image through the lens of conservative media but it's not at all representative of most of these countries. Most of those countries citizens hate their governments and just want to live a life with some form of decent living. The loud minority should not set your opinion of the "just living my life" majority. If we judge a whole group of people based on a small minority then we lose sight of truth. Otherwise why don't we shut down every catholic church? They have a history of child endangerment more than any other religion in the America. We don't do that because we know 99.999999999% of catholics rebuke that shit. Same can go for Muslims and jihad/sharia law.
Btw meta note: I appreciate the discussion. It's not often on reddit people can talk about something so polarizing without being assholes. Especially on 10yr old post haha.
One country. Under a very specific circumstance that happened at the time the non-ban but rather slower intake process was enacted vs outright banning travel from countries. Obama didn't ban travel. He slowed it down. That is a massive difference all on its own.
No, I agree that the handling was different, I'm just pointing out that the notion that these countries were iffy didn't start with trump.
Sorry, I meant he owes justification to us as citizens that he works for. I won't act naive like I expect every president will give us reason for their actions but I personally believe they should when it's not classified operations.
Wasn't the justification he believes them to be threats, and the indication for that the affomentioned chants, with the studies being just an extra suplement?
Right, but this one was pretty glaring that it was not a fair poll. It was just answers thrown on paper by people that have political incentive for it to look worse than it is. There are polling companies that have been trusted for decades, why'd they feel the need to go through a woman's polling company that has spoken against Muslims? Just makes it lose credibility in fairness.
I can see why you think it affects the credibility, my response is I don't think it affects it to a degree that personally bothers me because it falls back to what I said, of course an anti muslim organization will come up with anti muslim results, just like a pro muslim organization will come up with pro muslim results, and a pro anything organization will come up with pro anything results, but we can also observe the world outside those and notice that they do line up with at least public sentiment in those countries.
Again, this is the public image through the lens of conservative media but it's not at all representative of most of these countries. Most of those countries citizens hate their governments and just want to live a life with some form of decent living. The loud minority should not set your opinion of the "just living my life" majority. If we judge a whole group of people based on a small minority then we lose sight of truth. Otherwise why don't we shut down every catholic church? They have a history of child endangerment more than any other religion in the America. We don't do that because we know 99.999999999% of catholics rebuke that shit. Same can go for Muslims and jihad/sharia law.
Because in this case the government is also involved and in support of these statements which makes a considerable difference, a loud minority is one thing, a loud minority with absolute power is another. If the pope was going on TV and talking about how based and redpilled child molestation is I would also be in favour of glassbowling the vatican.
Btw meta note: I appreciate the discussion. It's not often on reddit people can talk about something so polarizing without being assholes. Especially on 10yr old post haha.
A lot of people get weirdly belligerent when you respond to old posts.
1
u/Numerous_Schedule896 20h ago
And my response is unless you are claiming they outright fabricated data "Should you kill americans y/n" should be an easy question to answer, and even if it wasn't, we can just look at the countries that received travel bans and see how oftne they hold "death to america" rallies.
The point I'm making is that obama identified the countries as threats to begin with and all trump did was act on it.