Trump will bring about a new era of prosperity

Conrad

Trump is playing a cunning hand, I suspect to enrage 'liberal' lefties I order to bring them onto the screens of every day average Joes, and that this exposure will revolt joe public and help seal a long period of right leaning administration

Herzlos

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

OK, lets roll.

The terrorist threat is insignificant is it?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Islamist_terrorist_attacks

Yup. Your link states 2,120 deaths due to terrorism in 2014 (latest one with a total). Google tells me that 2,626,418 people died in 2014. That means terrorism accounts for about 0.08% of the death that year.
Or 136,053 accidental deaths in the same timeframe in the US. 58 times more people died due to an accident in the US, than was killed by a terrorist in the world, in 2014.

That's utterly insignificant.

How many lives could we save annually if we spend the money we waste on terrorism on something useful like, vaccinations, health care, clean water, etc? Poor quality water is thought to be responsible for about 500,000 deaths per year. That's 235 times more than terrorists are responsible for.

In fact, you might have to go out of your way to find something that has killed less people annually across the globe that terrorism. Tigers only kill about 85 people a year, so there's that.

No, the reality of the order is exactly what the order says. Those are the instructions that the border agents will enforce. So if you come from the UK and you're a Muslim, you're not banned. If you come from Syria and you're a Buddhist, you're banned.

I'll concede here, but intent and instruction aren't strictly the same.

America elected Trump, he has decided to implement a travel ban on 7 countries, it's none of our business and we absolutely should not be butting in and telling them how to run their country.

Oh, we absolutely should be butting in when a country we are cosying up to is doing something that's been regarded as illegal by it's own legal system (leading to the AG being fired) and UN standards. We don't want to condone the US's actions towards Muslims any more than we want to condone whatever rights violations the Saudis are getting involved with. If we are seen to ignore it, then (a) it gives them impression that it's OK, and (b) it weakens our fragile world standing by association.

Oh, so hypothetically because some lizards or insects (I forget which) display characteristics such as asexual reproduction means that homo-sapiens, despite all the science to the contrary, can identify as an asexual gender even though they can't reproduce without an opposite gender? Meaning they can't do what they're claiming to be.

That's not the only cases, but I'm pointing out that biologically, there's precedent for more than 2 genders, and they don't need to be able to reproduce on their own. You may not have meant quite the context that I responded to though, which would be my bad.

But then, why do you care if someone wants to identify with a gender you don't recognize? I mean, why does it even matter? It's not as if anyone is asking you to be in any situation where it'd become in any way relevant. Sure, you might need to refer to them as 'they' rather than 's/he' but that's about it.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

The terrorist threat is insignificant is it?.

Yes.

It's insignificant.

Filo25

Sadly the rise of nationalism after an economic crisis isn't exactly a new phenomenon.

If things are going badly then people always seem to feel a bit better if they have some other group of people to blame.

TrickyTree83

Herzlos wrote: »

Yup. Your link states 2,120 deaths due to terrorism in 2014 (latest one with a total). Google tells me that 2,626,418 people died in 2014. That means terrorism accounts for about 0.08% of the death that year. That's utterly insignificant.

And all 2.6m are needless. I don't agree with you that it makes the people who died from Islamic terrorism an insignificant statistic. I also don't believe that the people who are injured as a result of Islamic terrorism are an insignificant statistic either, the injuries could well be life changing, loss of a limb, an eye, burns, disfigurement, paralysis, etc...

It is a significant threat, in the same way that ebola is a significant threat. One of them we deal with unanimously and swiftly internationally, the other is hamstrung and that prolongs the problem.

We recognised that if ebola, bird flu or swine flu took hold that we'd have a holocaust on our hands. Well if these idiots get their hands on biological, chemical or nuclear weaponry we've got the same problem.

Do you still think the threat is insignificant?

Herzlos wrote: »

How many lives could we save annually if we spend the money we waste on terrorism on something useful like, vaccinations, health care, clean water, etc?

Many, wouldn't it be lovely if we didn't have to spend money on counter-terrorism measures and actually help people instead. Sadly because of an ideology, we cannot.

I don't believe that people in this country would be willing to risk the lives of themselves, their friends and their loved ones in exchange to provide the benefits you suggest. Already the UK public are quite generous in their charitable giving, as is our government with the foreign aid budget. No argument from me that these could be increased if we could reduce our intelligence, policing and military budgets. It's not us in the UK you have to convince of that, it's the threats we face that need convincing. Whilst the threats remain we will not unilaterally make ourselves a target.

Herzlos wrote: »

Oh, we absolutely should be butting in when a country we are cosying up to is doing something that's been regarded as illegal by it's own legal system (leading to the AG being fired) and UN standards. We don't want to condone the US's actions towards Muslims any more than we want to condone whatever rights violations the Saudis are getting involved with. If we are seen to ignore it, then (a) it gives them impression that it's OK, and (b) it weakens our fragile world standing by association.

We absolutely shouldn't be butting in.

If they want to criminalise abortion, that's their business. If they want to ban visa's from certain countries, that's their business. It's nothing to do with us. We're not ignoring anything, they've banned visa's for 7 countries for 90 days.

Why are countries not up in arms telling us we're draconian for this:

For example, an applicant left the UK voluntarily at her own expense in January 2008 and applied for entry clearance using false documents in February 2008. Any subsequent entry clearance application must be automatically refused for 10 years, until February 2018. This is the longer refusal period where deception has been used in an entry clearance application. The shorter refusal period of 2 years for leaving the UK voluntarily is not applicable.

(https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/immigration-offender-rfl05-paragraph-3207b-and-a320/immigration-offender-rfl05-paragraph-3207b-and-a320)

So if you use deception to gain entry and you're caught upon attempting re-admittance, you're banned for 10 years from coming into the UK. So say in the example this woman had previously been in the UK since 1998 on a student visa, built a life here and then went home to see her family, came back and is now banned from her life for 10 years.

Why are you not shouting from the rooftops about a 10 year ban, instead of a 90 day ban? What makes these people deserving of a 10 year ban in your eyes instead of assessing each case on merit?

Herzlos wrote: »

That's not the only cases, but I'm pointing out that biologically, there's precedent for more than 2 genders, and they don't need to be able to reproduce on their own. You may not have meant what I responded to though.

More stories.



Because sometimes things that are wrong need to be corrected :j

In the whole of biology as it's currently known, there are cases I agree. Asexual reproduction is one of them.

Does it mean people can identify as one of these genders? Or is it forcing other people to conform with the "victims" view of themselves and how society should view them?



I don't know why I asked, of course it is. They want me to recognise things like "demiboy" or "agender" as their gender. No, I don't view gender as a societal construct, gender is a product of scientific fact. In our species, there are two barring the genetic mutations as discussed previously.

TrickyTree83

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Yes.

It's insignificant.

A wonderful meme.

Have you read the fine print?

Probably not...

It disproves itself once you do, common knowledge, you don't even need Google.

Edit: This is little different to the trash that comes out of the Scottish independence support. Just look at the date ranges, why not include 2000 - 2015, or 2016? If you do use google to check, it becomes obvious that it's convenient for that narrative not to do so.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_San_Bernardino_attack

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Orlando_nightclub_shooting

Filo25

I'm not sure why so many people seem to obsess over gender identity, it doesn't affect me in any way so I really don't understand the seeming outrage around the issue.

With regards to terrorism, the countries affected by the ban already had tight screening for immigration and I believe there is no history of terrorism in the US from people coming to the US from those countries so it is certainly a pretty odd targeting of a ban, for a problem that didn't really seem to exist as es existing controls seem to be working pretty adequately.

I would take Trump and the Republicans somewhat more seriously on their concern for the number of violent deaths in the US i they showed any serious interest in even moderate gun control rather than being in the NRA's back pocket.

Conrad

More blatant 'liberal' hypocrisy.


A wall with Mexico = bad.


A Turkish wall to keep out migrants, financed by us = ok.




>????


Update from the EU on wall building progress;

The EU approved border controls including ones along EU borders can incorporate watch towers, constant camera surveillance and plenty of “guards” to deal with any problems at crossing points. The 10th action point in the 72 point “Visa Liberalisation Roadmap” is to ensure sufficient well trained guards and surveillance equipment at crossing points. The 33rd point in the 72 point “Visa Liberalisation roadmap” agreed with Turkey by the EU is to “ensure effective expulsion of illegally residing 3rd country nationals.”

TrickyTree83

Filo25 wrote: »

I'm not sure why so many people seem to obsess over gender identity, it doesn't affect me in any way so I really don't understand the seeming outrage around the issue.

With regards to terrorism, the countries affected by the ban already had tight screening for immigration and I believe there is no history of terrorism in the US from people coming to the US from those countries so it is certainly a pretty odd targeting of a ban, for a problem that didn't really seem to exist as es existing controls seem to be working pretty adequately.

I would take Trump and the Republicans somewhat more seriously on their concern for the number of violent deaths in the US i they showed any serious interest in even moderate gun control rather than being in the NRA's back pocket.

It's an outrage that they want to use the state to force all of us to live their fantasy.

I will forever oppose such things. If we're open to this gender fantasy why don't we re-write history and science while we're at it? Lets just say we live on a flat earth plane, gravity doesn't exist, the rabbit is the top of the food chain and the holocaust never took place?

Filo25

Is Turkey going to make the refugees pay for the wall as well?

Personally I just view the wall with Mexico as a stupid and pointless waste of money, but once again it panders to an appearance of being tough on immigration.