Comments
-
Take note of the double standard here on funnypics. Post making fun of Trump recurve numerous upvote. Posts excited over Trump's new policies receive downvotes. I can understand the dislike of Trump's policies, I myself think he's a bafoon. But this people on this site should either stop complaining about political posts, downvote ALL political posts, or learn to find humor in ALL them.
-
@Goldeneye, yes but the ones making fun of him/hillary have some humor, while this is just blatant yay go trump (as in opinionated political posts with little to no humor). And most people on this app, as political as they may be (myself included), certainly don't want to see any pics that are A) unfunny or B)obviously political C) both. And if any of us wanted to look at politics we could just check the news online.
-
While the others can be debated, the last one is unarguably the right choice. Every country that has opened their arms and tried to be kind and peaceful, and work towards integrating a different culture has been repaid with an increase in murder and rape. It's a case where political correctness literally endangers lives
-
@Oujosh29, I'm just saying; he says he wants to ban refugees but now he's also banning people from visiting the US? Even for just a day? That's preposterous. Like when two visitors on a plane from Egypt to the US were stopped from getting to their destination just because Trump had passed the bill hours before
-
@Monstercat, it is also a temporary ban to allow changes to our vetting process. I believe most are 30 day and as of now. Syria I think was I definitely. The whole argument of "they may never see their family again" is over blown. Look at the problems Europe has had with refugees. I don't think preventing assaults, rapes, terrorism here is a bad idea. Yes, it is a small percentage, but we can do a better job keeping the bad guys out. So let's get a better system in place before we bring refugees in again. That is all that trump is doing. It just isn't being reported that way.
-
@RogueKnight, It's 120 day. And we already have a better system that doesn't let terrorists immigrate here. They have to spend 2 Years on a waiting list while being vetted. The US has let in about 70K /year since 2012. Out of the nearly 4 million refugees. So while we're sitting on our hands saying 'you people fleeing for your lives from war torn countries are dangerous' Many thousands of men, women and children are killed while waiting for clearance. Germany has a population of 83 million while the US (founded by immigrants and refugees) has a population of 381 million. While Germany has let in nearly 1 million(?) middle Eastern refugees.
-
@mas2de, and looks at all the issues Germany has had with their policy. Terrorism, sexual assaults, etc. And btw, every country was founded by immigrants except wherever humanity first started. So that argument means nothing. There has to be a balance between security and humanitarianism. I'm not sure trump has the right balance, but, as I did with Obama, I will give his policies a chance. Especially after seeing how the refugees crisis has impacted europe. Okay, we may have a better system. That doesn't mean it is good. Just better than Germany and France (just two examples). That doesn't give me confidence. Let's get a solid system in place, and then let's get refugees here. And I'd like to point out if we had a solid system in place already under the previous president, this wouldn't be necessary. Sometimes you can't do the feel good thing right away.
-
@mas2de, the idea that tells Us has had some effective vetting in place isn't true. It's virtually impossible to reliably vet immigrants because they are coming from countries with civil governments that weren't great at keeping records before their countries were in civil wars for years. Unless the person being vetted had some kind of international record, the "vetting" process was dragged the process out for a long time to make it look good then hope for the best.
-
@Kangaroo Jacked, Sorry mate but in the wise words of Trump, WRONG. Now, I don't claim total accuracy here but I've seen an image showing the number of Americans injured or killed on American soil by people of a certain nationality, and all the nations currently banned had a tally of zero, while other nations which had large tallies were not banned. Now, whether that image was totally accurate is up for grabs, but it is undeniable data and hard fact that Saudi Arabian nationals were the large majority of terrorists on the planes during 9/11, putting their casualty count in the hundreds, and that country is not banned via the executive order. So yes, it can be debated and proven to be wrong and ineffective at protecting Americans on the nation's soil. You just got served, much like Trump by the ACLU and the court judge who put a stay on this terribly implemented order.
-
@Kangaroo Jacked, I've come back with the exact facts for ya too! http://bit.ly/2iaPuod I was surprised the source for that infograph was so detailed. So uhm yeah, the travel ban is ill-considered, ineffective, and downright dumb for not banning travel from countries with precedent for sending terrorists towards America and banning people from those that never have. That is all.
-
@TheCruzanator, just read it all. It talks about 1975-2015 of only America. It makes reasonable points that during that time terrorism wasn't a huge threat in the US, save for 9/11. But it was written near the end of 2016, and doesn't mention anything about that year, which is when the whole refugee thing became a "crisis" for the US. 2015 is when there was a huge migration into the EU, and they're the ones taking the brunt of it still today, so their opinions mean a hell of a lot more on the subject than simply what America experienced, as if the world revolves around them. And their opinions have been turning negative. The people are getting pissed with the liberal views and policies letting migrants in. Sweden, the most open nation, and probably most liberal one in the EU, is starting to get fed up with it, especially since it's their tax dollars going to welfare for people who aren't fellow countrymen. You've got the attack on Brussels in Belgium, Berlin in Germany, etc.
-
@TheCruzanator, Norway has a stricter policy than most of the other countries, such as "no visa, no entry", and when was the last attack they had? 2011 with the nutjob kid? And last i saw, they're not taking in any more. So it looks like they're the ones with the better policy. Trump is too much of a gutless hypocrite to go with a proper policy, because that might harm his self interests, and is too clueless to moderate how far he pushes one. Trying to full on ban people from any travel simply due to the country they're leaving was declared unconstitutional. Could have just restricted it to the extent that Norway does it
-
@Kangaroo Jacked, EU is a whole other story for sure. In that instance I wholeheartedly agree with you, the evidence is apparent with no need for studies. But this pic is about Trump so I thought your original comments were speaking on that subject, where America's experience is the only current factor. Either way though, it seems we can both agree on the aspects of terrorism that supposedly influenced this and that is all I have hard data for so my claims end there. I'm glad to have found you a reasonable bloke, and hope you found that study as interestingly informative as I did. A good eve to you!
-
Can we agree now that political pictures generally suck, or am I still supposed to "appreciate the humor" on anti-Trump pictures? I had a whole year of seeing politics basically everywhere and I'm sick and tired of it. It wouldn't be nearly so bad if what passed for political discourse in this country wasn't just petty name-calling.
I'll come back to this one once the fights have started