Trump will bring about a new era of prosperity

Herzlos

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

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

I don't think taking a mans statements as a context to his actions is a misunderstanding. They match what he said he'd do, and leaks from his staff imply that he was forced to tone the order down. All the evidence I have access to fits the same context - it's a ban aimed at Muslims. I concede it doesn't explicitly say that in the EO, but that doesn't mean it's not.

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

Because it's a significant part of the context. It tells us *why* he did it.

Trump: "I'm going to ban Muslims"
Trump: <bans people from 7 almost exclusively Muslim states, unrelated to any terrorist history>
TrickyTree83: "But he didn't mention Muslims; it's not a ban on Muslims."

I'm going to stop there, because we're going to get nowhere and life is too short.

Herzlos

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

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?

I admit I don't have enough information to enact security measures, but it's pretty obvious that (a) most of them don't actually work, (b) they cause a division which is counter productive and (c) they are far out of scale with the risk. If we dropped all of them overnight, we wouldn't all suddenly die of terrorism, and if we ignored it, the main purpose for doing it (causing terror and a reaction) also just goes away.

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.

I don't get this. I'm not saying anything about importance. I'm saying that since you can only introduce so many measures or spend so much money, so why wouldn't you go for the one that provides the best value?

Take the emotion out of it, say you've got 2 problems that kill your crops. Problem A kills about 2 tons per yer, and Problem B kills about 500 tons per yer. You can't deal with both, which one do you focus on? Which one saves the most of your crops?

You seem to be arguing that because terrorism is a horrible, high profile thing, that we should let 200 people die to prevent 1 dying from terrorism. You're valuing the terror victim at 200x that of the water quality victim.

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.

I agree, we should try to reduce all forms of death, but we place a disproportionate amount of value on dealing with terror deaths, in terms of time/resource/liberty. We could easily half the anti-terror budget and save hundreds of times more people by using the resources elsewhere, and without reducing the quality of life.

So again; dealing with terrorism is something we should do, but at a suitable priority level.

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?

Except it is. It's completely baseless and counter productive. Sure they can ramp up the screening, but they shouldn't suspend peoples lives for 3 months until they decide what to do (which may include suspending it for another 3 months).

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.

It's got plenty to do with Islam, and it's currently temporary, but it's already hurting the US in terms of economy and image.

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.

In your opinion, but in the opinion of someone who doesn't fit a binary, then it's not binary.

If someone takes offence at me calling them a "he" when they identify as "agender", I don't care.

And that says more about you than them. If you feel you have the right to offend someone then that's fair enough. Anyway, you'll probably never meet one, so there's nothing to get upset about.

Again, this is the last I'm saying on it as we're going to get nowhere.

TrickyTree83

Herzlos wrote: »

I don't think taking a mans statements as a context to his actions is a misunderstanding. They match what he said he'd do, and leaks from his staff imply that he was forced to tone the order down. All the evidence I have access to fits the same context - it's a ban aimed at Muslims. I concede it doesn't explicitly say that in the EO, but that doesn't mean it's not.


Because it's a significant part of the context. It tells us *why* he did it.

Trump: "I'm going to ban Muslims"
Trump: <bans people from 7 almost exclusively Muslim states, unrelated to any terrorist history>
TrickyTree83: "But he didn't mention Muslims; it's not a ban on Muslims."

I'm going to stop there, because we're going to get nowhere and life is too short.

I cannot claim to know the inner motives of the man, nor can I verify the honesty of his pledges during his campaign for the presidency.

What I take issue with is the attacks set upon him for an executive order contextualised as a "ban on Muslims" by the media. It is not. The media and the narrative from those frothing at the mouth to denounce the man are wrong, it is not a Muslim ban.

Now if you choose to infer that because he said things during his campaign such as banning all Muslims from entry to the US that lead you to conclude this travel ban, which is directed at 7 countries previously identified as countries of terrorist concern under the Obama administration, is a ban on all Muslims then feel free to do so, I will defend your right to say that. But I will continue to point out that the evidence does not support that inference.

gfplux

nkomp18 wrote: »

Whoever thinks Trump is anything but a warmongering racist that will bring disaster to the world needs to have their head checked ASAP. No delay...

Even if you are racist, you should be worried about climate change. When the planet dies, nothing else will matter

Equally worrying is that so many people on this and other threads appear to be taking pleasure in the growing popularity of right wing (National Front) type political party's.
Have we not learnt that we should be afraid of extreme politics, left or right?

gfplux

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Yes.

It's insignificant.

Lock up those British made lawn mowers

Moto2

gfplux wrote: »

Equally worrying is that so many people on this and other threads appear to be taking pleasure in the growing popularity of right wing (National Front) type political party's.
Have we not learnt that we should be afraid of extreme politics, left or right?

Its happy days if you are a racist with Farage, Trump, Wilders, LePenn etc in the ascendancy. The politics of hate and the alt-right are a powerful lure to those who've been left behind by their own governments.

Conrad

Moby wrote: »

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?

It was aimed in general direction of all the superior social justice warriors that love a grandstanding opportunity give Trump a kicking (max exposure = max virtue signalling status points collected), but that saw fit not to mount MASS highly visible protests over serious moral and ethical issues such as Obamas constant use of drones that killed and maimed thousands of innocents


This is why I say lefty 'liberals' are almost always opportunist charlatans


What drives them is self aggrandisement


One of my best mates is one of these 'liberal' compassion warriors, and when we first met his wife said he was a man of the people (in a drunken non bragging manner). But in his actions he is not a man of the people, he cared nothing for the many that suffered ever reducing incomes due to mass importation of cheap workers, he cared not that UK firms stopped bothering to train youngsters, but give him a trendy visible compassion warrior cause and he is all over it like a cheap suit, sharing inane snowflake tweets in the 'liberal' echo chamber


Any opportunity to virtue signal with brown people or feminists earns max status points.


He loves framing things as nationalism. This must remind him of his student days where anything vaguely resembling National Socialism was a cause to fight with right-on comrades


I love him as a friend, by boy to we wind one another up

Conrad

Moto2 wrote: »

Its happy days if you are a racist with Farage, Trump, Wilders, LePenn etc in the ascendancy. The politics of hate and the alt-right are a powerful lure to those who've been left behind by their own governments.

Straight out of the hand book for under grad snowflake snobs.


This post sums up very well why the 'liberal' left is in terminal decline.




Too quaint!

Moto2

Conrad wrote: »

Straight out of the hand book for under grad snowflake snobs.


This post sums up very well why the 'liberal' left is in terminal decline.




Too quaint!

So do you think Farage, Trump, Wilders & LePenn are racists?
...and do you think the right is a powerful lure for those 'left behind?

Malthusian

The problem with that table (as good as it is for getting you likes on Facebook) is that when someone is struck by lightning or hit by a bus we don't shut down entire cities, put cops with sub-machine guns on the streets and cancel cultural and sporting events.

The left-wing notion that we should ignore such incidents, and accept that such attacks are our due and the righteous response of oppressed victims against Western "neoimperalism", is not a goer.

Trump has said that all his efforts are directed at ensuring that terrorist attacks do not become an accepted part of life as they are in Israel. It is about the only thing he says that makes any sense.