Trump will bring about a new era of prosperity

TrickyTree83

Herzlos wrote: »

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?

Isn't the use of what he said during the campaign to contextualise the travel ban the root of the misunderstanding?

I don't know for certain (I can't remember) and I shan't be bothered to look to see whether or not he said "ban all Muslims from US entry". But lets assume he did.

My simple point is, the executive order is not banning all Muslims.

You could be agnostic, atheist, Buddhist, Christian, Jewish (unlikely), Muslim or any other religious denomination from Syria and your refugee application will be refused, let alone a travel application.

So why, please... why are you using the "ban all Muslims" comment to contextualise something which already has it's own context?

It appears to me the reason why is to support a narrative to attack the man, claim he's racist and give justification to calls he's the reincarnation of Hitler rather than the ridicule they deserve. What an actual injustice to the people who suffered under Hitler.

wotsthat

Cripes. It's coming to something when Trump apologists are pointing out the ban is only a watered down version of what he promised.

CLAPTON

wotsthat wrote: »

Cripes. It's coming to something when Trump apologists are pointing out the ban is only a watered down version of what he promised.

indeed so, you have no commitment to actual actions just as you are in denial about the discrimination of the white, christian, european countries against black africa

I am against both Thumps unpleasant actions just as I am against the harm actions of the EU. In one case we have no say in the former matter but you believe that we have a democractic accountability for the latter.

TrickyTree83

Herzlos wrote: »

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.

What security measures?

If you know how terrorism is best dealt with why are you not driving government policy? Did Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi tell you that's why they're committing terrorist acts? Did he tell you that if we stopped oppressing them that they would stop killing us and inciting others to do so too?

Who is ill informed?

Herzlos wrote: »

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.


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.

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

By talking about the quantity and saying that we should prioritise a larger quantity over a smaller quantity you are by default talking about the importance of one set of deaths over another set of deaths.

If you could measure tragedy on a scale the tragedy that 1 person dies to the loved ones of that person is clearly equal to that of all of the loved ones of a mass killing, they all feel the same way there's just more of them. So with that in mind is it not a duty to protect the citizens from all threats? Otherwise why have prisons for murderers? Why keep serial killers away from the public? They don't take anywhere near as many lives as ebola.

Do you see the flaw? No risk should be an acceptable risk except in extreme circumstances, i.e. warfare.

Herzlos wrote: »

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.

They're already heavily screened, so if they believe that these procedures are not enough and are worried about letting terrorists through and want to take some time to sort out their procedures, placing a moratorium of 90 days on travel from origins which are known to the current and previous administrations as areas of concern for terrorism is not unreasonable is it?

It's not to do with Islam, and it's not permanent. The whole thing has been blown out of proportion and context on purpose, and you've bought right into it.

Herzlos wrote: »

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

No one is non-binary (Edit: obvious exception of intersex which is a genetic mutation). This is the point. Basic respect doesn't come into it, it's factual or it isn't. If you have XY chromosomes you're male, if you have XX chromosomes you're female, those are scientific definitions and terminologies. Ze, they, "demiboy" and "agender" are fantasies thought up by people who want to control how others view them.

If someone takes offence at me calling them a "he" when they identify as "agender", I don't care. As long as they have XY chromosomes I'll call him a "he". If it turns out I was wrong and "he" was actually a "she" then I will refer to her as "she" or "he" (their preference) but not "trans", it's not a gender, there are only two. In the same way that I wouldn't care if they called me baldy they should not take offence to a statement of fact, or at least one based in fact if they were to be transgender. Once we start down this road of giving in to grievance culture where do you draw the line?

When bald men are follically challenged, dwarfs are vertically challenged, the blind are visually impaired, the acronym we all know and love now stands at seven letters now, LGBTQIA, we've descended into farce.

I don't care if you're offended by a legitimate term used to describe a legitimate reality. If you're bald, you're bald, etc... if you are offended by terms like this then this is why people have started to refer to you as "snowflakes". No doubt that offends these days, fyi - it's on purpose. Add to that SJW, "liberal" (what a perverse use for the term though, they're not liberal they're authoritarian), and more besides.

I'm not saying these people cannot do what they want to do, say what they want to say and be what they want to be. I'm saying they cannot and should not expect to be able to force others to do as they wish. It's been going on for years, we're accustomed to the millstone of political correctness up until now but the most recent suggestions, at least for me and it appears many others, is a step too far.

TrickyTree83

wotsthat wrote: »

Cripes. It's coming to something when Trump apologists are pointing out the ban is only a watered down version of what he promised.

I'm no Trump apologist, in fact strike that, if pointing out the truth and reality of the situation makes me one, then fine, label me as a Trump apologist, I don't care. It doesn't make the reality any less real.

Moto2

Seems too good for him to have done it himself

https://twitter.com/trumpdraws

wotsthat

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

I'm no Trump apologist, in fact strike that, if pointing out the truth and reality of the situation makes me one, then fine, label me as a Trump apologist, I don't care. It doesn't make the reality any less real.

If you want to think the reality of the ban is nothing more than a measured response to a real terrorist threat and only a step away from measures already introduced by Obama fair enough. Maybe that doesn't make you an apologist but I believe it makes you wrong.

TrickyTree83

wotsthat wrote: »

If you want to think the reality of the ban is nothing more than a measured response to a real terrorist threat and only a step away from measures already introduced by Obama fair enough. Maybe that doesn't make you an apologist but I believe it makes you wrong.

On what basis?

It's not a ban on Muslims, there's nothing explicit in the text that the border agencies will be asked to enforce as per the text indicating that it's a ban on Muslims.

The countries against which the travel ban applies were previously identified under the previous administration.

There's a distinct difference between what the POTUS says, and what the order says. What the order says is what will be enforced, what the man says will clearly just be used against him by media and his opponents, but will obviously not be a manifesto to be used by the border agencies in enforcing the order.

wotsthat

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

On what basis?

It's not a ban on Muslims, there's nothing explicit in the text that the border agencies will be asked to enforce as per the text indicating that it's a ban on Muslims.

The countries against which the travel ban applies were previously identified under the previous administration.

There's a distinct difference between what the POTUS says, and what the order says. What the order says is what will be enforced, what the man says will clearly just be used against him by media and his opponents, but will obviously not be a manifesto to be used by the border agencies in enforcing the order.

You're right. There's no mention of Muslims and the countries were previously identified by the Obama administration. Therefore any connection between stating he wanted to ban all Muslims and implementing this completely different ban within days of becoming President is entirely coincidental.

Moby

Conrad wrote: »

I enjoyed the mass snowflake virtue signaller protests against;




1) The Muslim worlds anti - abortion policies (Muslim women mount mass protests against abortion throughout the Muslim world)


2) Deeply homophobic, misogynist Muslim clerics being invited to speak at UK Universities (whilst Germaine Greer and others are no-platformed)


3) Obama's drone strikes and bomb drops, mainly on Muslims (26,171 is 2016 alone)


4) FMG


5) Forced marriage


6) Child marriage - 8 y/o's to old goat herds in Yemen


7) The endemic brutality and misogyny found throughout Pakistan and other Muslim states


8) Obama's banning of Iraqi's into the US


9) Japans racist immigration policies


10) Banning of Israelis from many Muslim nations


I guess these other nations and peoples are irrelevant to the social justice warrior cult. Reverse racism.

Conrad ....can you point me in the direction of my posts in which I've advocated or defended any of the above? ......and then we can debate the relevance of your post.
....because I don't just want to assume that all you are childishly saying is that two wrongs make a right.....by the way I've campaigned against many of the things you describe above.....have you?