text: It is a personal attack to allude to the idea that your opponents are "professional Trump supporters" or are "very dim" or are "snarling snowflakes". Personal attacks are not compelling.
  
  The other part of your post is kind of bizarre. You say that terrorists were sent to the USA from Pakistan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia, implying that those countries would be better choices for a refugee travel ban. 
  
  Hello?
  
  By arguing that countries with an "A plus" record on bad terrorist mayhem are better candidates for a refugee ban than countries with mere "F minus" records on bad terrorist mayhem, you are normalizing the idea that refugee travel bans are defensible and really you are simply quibbling about the cut-off grade, should it be an "A minus" or a "C plus". 
  
  A more cogent argument would be to state clearly that bans on refugees based on nationality are indefensible.