Trump will bring about a new era of prosperity

wotsthat

Trump is paying for the votes of those American who spend time worrying about Muslims. It's simple payback - there's no considered thought to terrorism risk.

Filo25

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

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?

How are you being forced to live in their fantasy, how does it affect you or anyone else really in any way?

I live in London, where you would probably to find this "issue" more than anywhere else, and I can't honestly say it has any impact on my life at all, I know a fair few people in the lesbian and gay community, as pretty much anyone down here would, but that's about it when it comes to "non-traditional" sexual orientation.

CLAPTON

Filo25 wrote: »

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.

The EU does indeed levy tariffs on foreign countries, just like Thump is planning to do.
The main difference seems that Thrump is targeting Mexico, whilst the EU targets developing black africa countries.

TrickyTree83

wotsthat wrote: »

Trump is paying for the votes of those American who spend time worrying about Muslims. It's simple payback - there's no considered thought to terrorism risk.

The restrictions were part of wide ranging immigration controls that also suspended refugee arrivals. It appears that existing restrictions in place during the Obama administration informed Mr Trump's list.

These countries were already named as "countries of concern" after a law passed by a Republican-led Congress in 2015 altered a visa admissions programme.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38798588

I really dislike that you're making me defend him. But clearly there is thought towards risk of terrorism in this since he cannot be castigated for coming up with the list in the first place, he's just tightened up the restrictions.

Filo25

CLAPTON wrote: »

The EU does indeed levy tariffs on foreign countries, just like Thump is planning to do.
The main difference seems that Thrump is targeting Mexico, whilst the EU targets developing black africa countries.

Stretching it a bit there aren't you Clapton.

The EU does indeed have tariffs on trade from around the world, just like pretty much any other nation I can think of.

But its a bit different to unilaterally pushing through massive tariff hikes against a neighbouring country in defiance of your existing trade agreements just to make a point about getting them to pay for some crazy, ineffective policy you come up with.

TrickyTree83

Filo25 wrote: »

How are you being forced to live in their fantasy, how does it affect you or anyone else really in any way?

I live in London, where you would probably to find this "issue" more than anywhere else, and I can't honestly say it has any impact on my life at all, I know a fair few people in the lesbian and gay community, as pretty much anyone down here would, but that's about it when it comes to "non-traditional" sexual orientation.

I'm currently not forced to live their fantasy, and it needs to stay that way. The outrage is that they persist in attempting to gain the ability/power to force people to accede to their demands.

http://www.independent.co.uk/student/news/sussex-university-gender-neutral-pronouns-transgender-lgbt-rights-brighton-sexuality-politics-a7505671.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-34901704

Unacceptable doctrine. Free speech allows me to offend people and for me to be offended by people. Hate speech is different, them, they and theirs are not pronouns I recognise nor will ever use as these people intend. It will be he or she, not ze, they, or any other fantasy term that these people can imagine. It is binary, if you do not fit into the binary category your chromosomes tell us that you should be in, then you have a medical condition.

Thrugelmir

Filo25 wrote: »

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.

Those other people though don't seem keen on sharing their wealth though. The gulf between is simply too large. On the back of 50 years of economic policy that appears to have run it's course. Discontent is definately bubbling up.

CLAPTON

Filo25 wrote: »

Stretching it a bit there aren't you Clapton.

The EU does indeed have tariffs on trade from around the world, just like pretty much any other nation I can think of.

But its a bit different to unilaterally pushing through massive tariff hikes against a neighbouring country in defiance of your existing trade agreements just to make a point about getting them to pay for some crazy, ineffective policy you come up with.

Thump is changing the trade agreements.
He is planning to impose tariffs.


I believe that the EU27 will change the trade agreement with the EU after brexit.
They are planning to introduce tariffs. They will be doing this in a unilateral way just to make a political point which seems crazy.

What exactly is your point? Is it not valid for a country (or the EU) to decide on what tariffs they wish to impose?

Herzlos

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

And all 2.6m are needless.

Agreed.

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.

Ebola is a threat because it spreads like wildfire causing the deaths or 50% of the people it's transferred to, and has killed tens of thousands.
Terrorism is different because it only spreads when you cause it to spread (generally by things like Trumps ban, or blowing people up), and kills a small fraction of the people annually. Would you chose to wipe out terrorism or ebola, if it was a binary choice?

Do you still think the threat is insignificant?

Very much so, by every definition of the word. In terms of harm caused by terrorism, it's nothing compared to other sources, and the response it completely over the top whilst being completely counter productive.

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.

I'm much, much more concerned about my family being injured due to something like a road accident, than a terrorist attack. A terrorist attack is a horrible thing, but the odds of it happening are low.

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



(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.

Because (a) the ban is a punishment for a crime, which in this case was gaining entry via deception, and (b) on a case-by-case basis. If we'd introduced a 10 year ban for anyone originally from a given country, there'd have quite rightly been outrage.

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?

It means they can identify as whatever they want to, and that it should be respected by others.

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.

You're conflating 2 genders there though. There's the physical and the emotional/social. If someone wants to identify as being a space zebra, then what difference does it make to anyone? All they are asking is that you go along with it and don't abuse them for being different.

wotsthat

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38798588

I really dislike that you're making me defend him. But clearly there is thought towards risk of terrorism in this since he cannot be castigated for coming up with the list in the first place, he's just tightened up the restrictions.

In 2015 Trump called for 'a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the US until our representatives can figure out what's going on'.

He purchased the votes and has just paid the invoice.

You do yourself no good service by trying to link this to a terrorist threat. Maybe there is one but you've spent more time researching this than Trump has. Maybe it's only a stricter implementation of Obama measures but which administration would you guess had spent more than 5 minutes considering risk?

You and I both know what's going on here.

Farage knows what's going on too but has his tongue way down the back of Trump's trousers and so only noted the banning order didn't mention Muslims and was only temporary.