Trump will bring about a new era of prosperity

Filo25

Thrugelmir wrote: »

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.

Nothing new in the rich not being keen on sharing though is there !

But you are right inequality has risen generally over the last few decades for a number of reasons, it certainly feels like there are fewer good, well paying, secure jobs now compared to the environment faced by previous generations, and the safety net for the more vulnerable in society feels more insecure than it has for many years.

Its certainly a much tougher world now if you are lacking in skills and qualifications.

Nationalists/populists may have tapped into those concerns to boost their support significant;y, but I still don't see what they are offering that is likely to address the underlying issue, beyond convincing peope that its all the fault of some other group doing them over!

TrickyTree83

Herzlos wrote: »

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?

So under a Herzlos administration, terrorist organisations can operate freely and execute citizens as they see fit, for reasons as trivial as a 90 day visa ban?

If I had the choice I would wipe out ebola, but your question implies that one set of deaths is more important than the other, and I don't believe that. I don't think someone from Sierra Leone would say that Lee Rigby was more deserving of death than their relative who passed away from ebola.

Herzlos wrote: »

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'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.

I'm glad you said it's a horrible thing, because I was starting to wonder.

The odds might be low at the moment and I would put that down to policy, policing and intelligence.

According to POTUS and his administration the ban is in place while they work out how to do that effectively to minimise risk, granted Syrian refugees have an indefinite ban but I'd pose that is because it's ground zero for the Islamic caliphate that has wished destruction on the US.

Herzlos wrote: »

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.

Right, so 90 days is only a temporary suspension. It's not a 10 year ban because not all of the people from those countries are guilty of being a terrorism risk. They're not proven to be guilty of anything but there is no safe way of ascertaining whether or not they are likely to be. As I understand the administration was always going to toughen up the vetting process, how they do that I don't know. I would posit that the moratorium on travel is in place to give them time to work out how to do that before they potentially let someone through with terrorism in mind.

Herzlos wrote: »

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

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.

I'm not conflating anything, the mere fact that you believe there's two types of gender is the exact same issue I'm referring to. If they want to identify as a space zebra, fine, I believe they should be allowed to do that, but if they're male, I will refer to them as "he" and not "space zebra". And I should not be made to do otherwise, no one should, ever. That is the policing of peoples speech.

Malthusian

Filo25 wrote: »

But you are right inequality has risen generally over the last few decades for a number of reasons, it certainly feels like there are fewer good, well paying, secure jobs now compared to the environment faced by previous generations, and the safety net for the more vulnerable in society feels more insecure than it has for many years.

The job of an unskilled labourer pays more today in real terms than the job of many skilled and professional positions did 50 years ago. An unskilled labourer on minimum wage today will live in a warmer, larger, better-maintained house than many could 50 years ago, and afford luxuries that didn't even exist then.

As for security, if jobs today are less secure it is only because of improvements in transport and communication. It is still possible to find the same job security by travelling to somewhere with poor transport and communication links, such as Africa or North Korea, where you will find a job - once you've got one - a lot harder to lose. But few would prefer the trade-off.

TrickyTree83

wotsthat wrote: »

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.

If you want to hammer him on climate change denial, go ahead, I'd agree with you. But on this travel ban I will not since the evidence does not support Trump opponents narratives, those narratives are fabrications designed for one purpose which is to make Trumps time in office hell and to rile up masses of the apathetic and illiterates, I assume illiterates because if they could read they can clearly see the truth for themselves, and if they can they clearly haven't bothered to do so. I would pity those who can't read to inform themselves, the others ought to feel shame.

Dislike the man, fine, castigate him for what he does wrong, fine, but lets not make !!!! up to expedite that. As with anyone else, he deserves a fair trial, not pitchforks and torches based on media headlines.

Edit: And the same goes for May.

Filo25

TrickyTree to be fair it isn't just Trump's opponents' narrative on this one, he doesn't buy much credibility with regards to the innocence of his motives when he made the comments he did during the campaign and then you have his buddy Giuliani's comments recently.

You can hardly blame people for being somewhat suspicious with what is driving policy in those circumstances.

I don't think there is any doubt that Trump wouldn't be getting half as much criticism if it wasn't for some of the comments he made throughout the campaign, many people are now predisposed to distrust him and his motives.

Equally a lot of the hate for Wall policy comes from some of the comments he made about Mexican immigrants during the campaign (although a fair bit also comes from the fact that the policy is unlikely to achieve a great deal)

wotsthat

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

If you want to hammer him on climate change denial, go ahead, I'd agree with you. But on this travel ban I will not since the evidence does not support Trump opponents narratives, those narratives are fabrications designed for one purpose which is to make Trumps time in office hell and to rile up masses of the apathetic and illiterates, I assume illiterates because if they could read they can clearly see the truth for themselves, and if they can they clearly haven't bothered to do so. I would pity those who can't read to inform themselves, the others ought to feel shame.

Dislike the man, fine, castigate him for what he does wrong, fine, but lets not make !!!! up to expedite that. As with anyone else, he deserves a fair trial, not pitchforks and torches based on media headlines.

Edit: And the same goes for May.

As far as I see he's delivering on his election promises. Not going to kid myself a detailed risk assessment has been happening in the background though. He knew which buttons to press and did so effectively. Not sure there's a controversial narrative to disprove.

Herzlos

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

But on this travel ban I will not since the evidence does not support Trump opponents narratives, those narratives are fabrications designed for one purpose which is to make Trumps time in office hell and to rile up masses of the apathetic and illiterates, I assume illiterates because if they could read they can clearly see the truth for themselves, and if they can they clearly haven't bothered to do so. I would pity those who can't read to inform themselves, the others ought to feel shame.

Yeah, how dare we use the words he actually said, to frame a picture of what he means when he does stuff. Are you deliberately trying to be obtuse here or do you genuinely think that race has nothing to do with it, despite his well documented views of foreigners (Muslims, Mexicans and Chinese in particular)?

If it was just the ban, then I'd agree with you, but since he pledged in his campaign (and I paraphrase) to "Ban Muslims from US entry", I think it's fair to assume that this blanket ban, targeting Muslim states, may be a bit more than a co-incidence. Especially when it misses the main source of terrorists, and doesn't have exclusions for people who've already passed vetting. Is there anything in that you disagree with? Am I misremembering what he said?

Herzlos

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

So under a Herzlos administration, terrorist organisations can operate freely and execute citizens as they see fit, for reasons as trivial as a 90 day visa ban?

I'd instigate security measures that actually did something and get rid of the whole security theatre. Terrorism is best dealt with by getting rid of the oppressor image and the sense of social detachment that allows people to be radicalised. I wouldn't further it just to make some ill informed people worry less.

If I had the choice I would wipe out ebola

So you actually agree with me.

If you only have so many resources, you want to focus them on the areas that'll make the most difference, not the ones that the papers make the most noise about.

but your question implies that one set of deaths is more important than the other, and I don't believe that.

Not at all. I've said nothing about the importance of deaths, just the quantity. It's not up for debate that the elimination of Ebola will save hundreds of times more lives than the eradiaction of ISIS or terrorist groups in general.

I don't think someone from Sierra Leone would say that Lee Rigby was more deserving of death than their relative who passed away from ebola.

And I don't think anyone from London would say the converse either. Both are equally as sad for the families involved.

According to POTUS and his administration the ban is in place while they work out how to do that effectively to minimise risk, granted Syrian refugees have an indefinite ban but I'd pose that is because it's ground zero for the Islamic caliphate that has wished destruction on the US.

Except they don't seem to have spent any time thinking about it yet, even to see if it's a legal thing to do. It's so badly set up with so much vagueness and loophole that it's not a good step in any case. Plus, as mentioned, the countries listed are already very heavily screened and haven't actually produced any terrorists. It also ignores people who have already been cleared.

If it was a well thought out, rational EO, written by a man who didn't campaign on the basis of banning Muslims, I wouldn't have anything like as much of a problem with it.

Right, so 90 days is only a temporary suspension. It's not a 10 year ban because not all of the people from those countries are guilty of being a terrorism risk.

Exactly, so they are completely different things.

They're not proven to be guilty of anything but there is no safe way of ascertaining whether or not they are likely to be. As I understand the administration was always going to toughen up the vetting process, how they do that I don't know. I would posit that the moratorium on travel is in place to give them time to work out how to do that before they potentially let someone through with terrorism in mind.

And there never will be a safe way to do it, but the risk is negligible. If it's possible to get through just by pretending to be Christian, then it's a complete waste of time.

I'm not saying they shouldn't be vetted and that there shouldn't be measures in place, but this is a clearly bad plan for a clearly bad reason.

I'm not conflating anything, the mere fact that you believe there's two types of gender is the exact same issue I'm referring to. If they want to identify as a space zebra, fine, I believe they should be allowed to do that, but if they're male, I will refer to them as "he" and not "space zebra". And I should not be made to do otherwise, no one should, ever. That is the policing of peoples speech.

It's a matter of basic respect though. Would you call a Dr "Mr"? or a "ms" "Mrs"?
Plus, you're not going to have to learn tables of terms, it's a simple he/she/they. The same they you use when talking about multiples or people you can't otherwise identify anyway.
Will it really affect you if you have to refer to someone in the 3rd person as they every now and then? Unless you personally know someone who is nonbinary, then you'll probably only need to do this a handful of times in your lifetime. It's really not worth getting upset over :j

CLAPTON

Herzlos wrote: »

If it was just the ban, then I'd agree with you, but since he pledged in his campaign (and I paraphrase) to "Ban Muslims from US entry", I think it's fair to assume that this blanket ban, targeting Muslim states, may be a bit more than a co-incidence. Especially when it misses the main source of terrorists, and doesn't have exclusions for people who've already passed vetting. Is there anything in that you disagree with? Am I misremembering what he said?

There isn't a blanket ban targeting Muslim states ; indeed the majority of Muslim states aren't included, nor are the vast majority of Muslim people included either.

Now he is a fairly unpleasent person, but you should try to stick to the facts.

By comparison we could note that 100% percent of africa states are discriminated against by the white, christian states of europe.

Herzlos

CLAPTON wrote: »

There isn't a blanket ban targeting Muslim states ; indeed the majority of Muslim states aren't included, nor are the vast majority of Muslim people included either.

So the 7 states he's banned aren't Muslim?