Like I say there are nearly 320 million people in America now.
That number of death means nothing in the grand scheme of things because the population growth is so scarily fast soon the world will limit the number of children a family can have ...
So if 440,095 deaths don't matter as they are just noise (they are all still people) what does it say about the 3,412? Are they not worth worrying about too? That seems to be your point doesn't it - It's 0.77% of the shooting deaths since 1975. Hence we get to a logic fail, if one is a massive problem the other should be. If the bigger number isn't a problem how can the one that is less than 1% be a problem.
Yes this is why you don't engage the troll isn't it...
[quote=mikewsmith ]Yes this is why you don't engage the troll isn't it...
You'll find I give chewy's posts [b]exactly[/b] the level of respect they deserve.
Diamond & Silk - self styled Trump supporters speak the truth with Evan Davis, [url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-39186644 ]Nothing but the truth, the whole truth and no bigly lies.....no siree Jim bob, god bless America [/url]
mikewsmith - Member
So if 440,095 deaths don't matter as they are just noise (they are all still people) what does it say about the 3,412? Are they not worth worrying about too? That seems to be your point doesn't it - It's 0.77% of the shooting deaths since 1975.
Nope, death is death the bottom line is this.
American is merely trying to prevent death their own ways.
Therefore, America can ban whoever they want as they see fit, their country, their rules and their rationale.
You are no more rational than the red necks you so despise.
[quote=chewkw ]You are no more rational than the red necks you so despise.
He's debating with you - good point
So what - he's still put the ban in place, ban is better than no ban, Trump wins, again.what you don't recognise is the inherent use of psychological anchors - The outcome is more important than the offer.
So let's see. The last attempt ended in failure because it just caused absolute chaos, stamped down on people who wouldn't be a threat to a mouse, was deemed illegal and achieved nothing except keeping Chump in the news and making his supporters feel a bit better.
It lasted 40 days during which nothing of the promised "figuring out" went on.
It also encouraged an atmosphere in which lunatics went around shooting non-white people who were told they should "go back to their own country".
Chump's reaction to all this mayhem and failure?
Knock Iraq off the list and do it again.
My conclusion is that Chump's actions are defended by halfwits who couldn't think their way out of a paper bag.
No offense.
My conclusion is that Chump's actions are defended by halfwits who couldn't think their way out of a paper bag.
I'd go wet paper bag, most are using the say it 3 times and it's true idea too.
The worse part is it's actually ineffective along with being damaging to the rest of the world and the US's reputaion. The rise of Islamaphobia is going to be the biggest issue the west needs to deal with, it bears a lot of the same signs of the Anti Semitic behavoiours people keep going on about. Religion is not terrorism, nationality does not make you a terrorist.
Actions like this simply feed the recruiters more angry people to manipulate and indoctrinate.
The issue with the ban is Trump himself..... throughout the campaign (and since) he's been calling it a "muslim ban".
Something is discriminatory if the intent is to discriminate. The Donald announced that this was the ban's purpose from the word go - to be a travel ban discriminating against Muslims. Therefore, it's unconstitutional.
Clumsily re-branding the same thing as "a ban of people from countries where there is terrorism" doesn't alter it's already highly publicised purpose - it might fool a few (stupid) people, but it's essentially the same thing, with the same intent.
Instead of calling it a "muslim ban" throughout his campaign, if he had called it "a ban of people from countries where there is terrorism" - we wouldn't be having all this fuss..... but then again, all of his bigoted racist supporters wouldn't have lapped it up in the way they did.
Maybe Trump could get someone to post absolute nonsense on Internet forums, to get people to waste their time engaging in pointless discussions. Maybe he could call this someone... ooh ... let's say "chewkw " for example.
Trump getting rid of obamacare will probably kill more people in America than terrorism this year, but at least he's managed to put a tax break for insurance ceo's in there. Really helping the little people eh?
"Well, unless that ban is seen as a deliberate and unjust act against Muslims, which results in the radicalisation of some Muslims already living the usa, who then organise a terror attack"
So if the UK banned people from some countries would you start killing UK people?
I'm guessing not, in which case why do you think Muslims will? Don't tell me, I know.
I'm guessing not, in which case why do you think Muslims will? Don't tell me, I know.
Oh my god! Are Muslims killing people? You mean that Muslims are killing people!!
This is horrendous!! Why didn't anyone tell me? And what the hell are we going to do about it? Some one should do something!! I can't believe Muslims are killing everyone.. Surely such an evil religion should be outlawed and all Muslims should be stopped from killing us all.
And taking our jobs.
but at least he's managed to put a tax break for insurance ceo's in there.
Where does it say that?
I think the trump effect is going to set in soon, setting the bar so low for poloticians everywhere. No matter what they do now people will just shrug and say ' at least they're not as bad as Trump.
This is how it ends, not with a bang but with a tweet.
Mikey74 there was an article on buzzfeed on it. Can't find any more info on it so not sure of its accuracy but quotes some figures which means insurance company executives get paid more while the company pays less tax. It removes caps put in place by obamacare.
"Are Muslims killing people?"
They're not though are they? Billions of Muslims live normal lives, just like everyone else of every faith and no faith. You just can't back up the claim that temporarily being unable to travel to the states is going to turn them all into crazed murderers.
You just can't back up the claim that temporarily being unable to travel to the states is going to turn them all into crazed murderers.
One act doesn't change things, but when you have a disaffected generation, you hammer them for being who they are and what they look like you demonise them because of their religion, you oppress and harass them, shoot them when they are unarmed and claim self defense (a d get away with it) you have the seeds of trouble. You give the broken and the angry to the manipulators and see what happens. If your unsure about how some of this works look up Northern island etc.
This is how it ends, not with a bang but with a tweet.
Very good.
320 million people and you are concerned with that 2,648?That's 0.0008% of the population
that's nearly the same number of people killed in the World Trade Centre attacks, carried out by a group who were mostly Saudis and financed by a Saudi. I take that the number is so inconsequential that that is why Saudi Arabia isn't on the ban list and it's nothing whatsoever to do with The Trumpet's investments in Saudi Arabia?
I take that the number is so inconsequential that that is why Saudi Arabia isn't on the ban list and it's nothing whatsoever to do with The Trumpet's investments in Saudi Arabia?
Of course it's to do with American interests in Saudi.
This whole charade is just a result of Trump suggesting something during the election campaign and then having to follow it up by imposing a "ban". The 90 - 120 day ban will very probably achieve nothing at all but he can say he did what he promised and his supporters will clap and cheer.
that's nearly the same number of people killed in the World Trade Centre attacks, carried out by a group who were mostly Saudis and financed by a Saudi. I take that the number is so inconsequential that that is why Saudi Arabia isn't on the ban list and it's nothing whatsoever to do with The Trumpet's investments in Saudi Arabia?
Eh? What has the historic origin of previous attacks got to do with the likely origin of future attacks? Or are you suggesting the US should also ban the Japanese just in case they want another crack at it.
Saudi Arabia is an active partner in the war on fundamentalist Islamic terrorism, and shares information with US security agencies allowing effective pre-vetting for visa purposes, that's why they are not on the list
Iraq didn't, now they do, so they were taken off the list
The countries still on the list don't, or do not have stable government in order to allow it.
Not only is that entirely reasonable and proportionate, but the very fact that Saudi Arabia isn't subject to the restriction shoots down the argument that it's a 'Muslim ban'
Eh? What has the historic origin of previous attacks got to do with the likely origin of future attacks?
Dunno, but Homeland Security says country of origin is a piss poor way of telling too
“country of citizenship is unlikely to be a reliable indicator of potential terrorist activity.”
The executive order doesn't restrict people based on country of citizenship.
but the very fact that Saudi Arabia isn't subject to the restriction shoots down the argument that it's a 'Muslim ban'
The very fact that Trump himself referred to it as a Muslim ban doesn't matter then?
Other analysis disagrees with you there
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/06/us/politics/travel-ban-muslim-trump.html
WASHINGTON — President Trump signed an executive order on Monday blocking citizens of six predominantly Muslim countries from entering the United States, the most significant hardening of immigration policy in generations, even with changes intended to blunt legal and political opposition.The order was revised to avoid the tumult and protests that engulfed the nation’s airports after Mr. Trump signed his first immigration directive on Jan. 27. That order was ultimately blocked by a federal appeals court.
The new order continued to impose a 90-day ban on travelers, but it removed Iraq, a redaction requested by Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, who feared it would hamper coordination to defeat the Islamic State, according to administration officials.
It also exempts permanent residents and current visa holders, and drops language offering preferential status to persecuted religious minorities, a provision widely interpreted as favoring other religious groups over Muslims. In addition, it reversed an indefinite ban on refugees from Syria, replacing it with a 120-day freeze that requires review and renewal.
Yes it removes the restriction from people with valid visa's but still targets entire nations.
US President Donald Trump has signed a revised executive order for a US travel ban, leaving Iraq off the list of targeted countries, after his controversial first attempt was blocked in the courts.Key points:
Iraq's new vetting procedures cited as reason for being removed from list
Legal residents, green card holders, refugees in transit reportedly exempt from new ban
Indefinite suspension of Syria also scrapped
Critics expect new executive order to face same uphill battle in courts as the last ban
The new order, which reportedly takes effect on March 16, will keep a 90-day ban on travel to the United States by citizens of six Muslim-majority nations — Iran, Libya, Syria, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen.Iraq was taken off the list of countries in the original order, issued on January 27, because the Iraqi Government had imposed new vetting procedures, such as heightened visa screening and data sharing, and because of its work with the US in countering Islamic State militants, White House officials said.
Anyway off to the courts. But wait didn't somebody say it had to be immediate as all the ones they didn't want would flood in - so they are probably already there...Unless the actual normal border controls work well. As posted before the instances of terror attacks by non US citizens is tiny, 9/11 is a spike that puts the number way above background noise since 1975.
It's political shouting to appease people and simpletons. It's also there to distract from something a bit more eastern and red?
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/06/us/politics/rod-rosenstein-sessions-trump-russia-justice-department.html
The narrative will be:
"We put in a ban like we said we would, despite the best efforts of The Swamp to stop us. As a result there have been no terror attacks by immigrants."
Conveniently ignoring the fact that attacks by islamist terrorists were almost zero ([url= http://www.dailywire.com/news/11410/complete-list-radical-islamic-terror-attacks-us-james-barrett# ]just over one a year during the Obama administration[/url]) before the ban came into effect. It's worth noting that one of the attacks was by a major in the US army.
Very much a "Do little and shout a lot about it", intelligence led immigration controls will be much more effective and have been in place for years. Every time you get on an international flight your name and that of the other passengers will be sent to the destination country who'll do further checks on whether they wish to have a word with you upon arrival.
The very fact that Trump himself referred to it as a Muslim ban doesn't matter then?
No
Other analysis disagrees with you there
Analysis schmanalysis (according to analysis, HIllary Clinton was going to in the election) The executive order simply doesn't use citizenship as a criteria, go and read it.
ninfan - Member
The very fact that Trump himself referred to it as a Muslim ban doesn't matter then?
No
2+2=5
Ninfan is right you shouldn't believe anything Trump says.
The executive order simply doesn't use citizenship as a criteria, go and read it.
It's vague enough to enable it to simply be that. Back to people needing to check if they can transit through the US or school kids who have never lived somewhere but have a passport being denied travel.
Fancy being an Iranian dual national who needs to transit through the US?
Given he cooked up this idea long before he even got close to a security briefing or any actual intelligence reports it's safe to assume it's based in no real evidence or substance.
Anyway back to the game of who resigns next.
Conveniently ignoring the fact that attacks by islamist terrorists were almost zero (just over one a year during the Obama administration) before the ban came into effect.
You're still stuck in the mindset of using past attacks as a predictor of future attacks - that would be like saying we are safe from attacks in the future because airline security was improved, we are not, because the threat profile changed, and keeps changing and evolving, e.g. Bombs on trains, hijacked lorries and shopping centre type gun attacks.
The future attacker profile is different from the last:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-32770390
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/isis-fighters-hiding-on-migrant-boats-coming-to-europe-report-says-10255887.html
It's vague enough to enable it to simply be that
No it isn't, you're just making it up because you were wrong - the executive order does not use citizenship as a criteria, go and read it, it's a simple and uncontroversial matter of fact.
Ah so the ban is based on specific evidence then... Like the stuff that has actually been working.
On a few of the recent cases how many of them were citizens of the countries they attacked? I think you will find its a hell of a lot. Keep going with the logic though
On a few of the recent cases how many of them were citizens of the countries they attacked?
Again, not only the logical fallacy of past attack profile as predictor of future attack profile, but you remain hung up on citizenship, which is a complete irrelevance, the executive order does not use citizenship as a criteria.
The point being unless terror tactics changed the day they elected the orange people who already live there are more of a threat, people that want to get in will. The exec order unless using some kind of psychic predictions will not stop terrorism especially as you are so keen to tell us the past will not predict the future.
And none of which will stop massive amount of Americans being shot by American [s]terrorists[/s] mass shooters with their legally owned guns. The stats tell you what the real problem is. Hatred, fear and ignorance is what is driving this order.
You're still stuck in the mindset of using past attacks as a predictor of future attacks - that would be like saying we are safe from attacks in the future because airline security was improved, we are not, because the threat profile changed, and keeps changing and evolving, e.g. Bombs on trains, hijacked lorries and shopping centre type gun attacks
Then why bother with the ban? Terrorists will only change their tactics and the current system seems to wotk fine, there havent been any attacks on American soil by foreign nationals since 9/11 has there?
The two biggest existential threats to humanity at the moment are a Bioterror attack and climate change, yet no one in the Trump camp or on the right really gives a **** about either - meanwhile they're losing their minds over a few relatively small IEDs. There is no sense of proprtionality from the right. That and good bioterror defense requires a well organised deeply integrated healthcare system - which the right dont want to fund.
Again, not only the logical fallacy of past attack profile as predictor of future attack profile
Agreed, I think he should ban Polar Bears, due to the fact that they have no history of terrorist attacks, I think that this clearly indicates that they are more likely to attack than Muslims. The logic is there and proven.
Captain is it bad that I expect those sort of conversations to be going on in the oval office in a sort of simpsons farther Ted mash up
Are you actually accusing me of bugging the Oval Office?
With trump you could probably just hide behind the curtains.
😆
Agreed, I think he should ban Polar Bears, due to the fact that they have no history of terrorist attacks, I think that this clearly indicates that they are more likely to attack than Muslims. The logic is there and proven.
Make your mind up, surely it's only brown bears that Trump would ban
the executive order does not use citizenship as a criteria, go and read it, it's a simple and uncontroversial matter of fact.
It's also a fact that Trump said that he would put in place a muslim ban.
How do we know what facts are facts and which facts aren't facts?
It's also a fact that Trump said that he would put in place a muslim ban.
No it isn't, and no he didn't!
Lee Gelernt, a senior lawyer at the ACLU’s national office and one of the main lawyers on the case, tells me. “President Trump has made numerous statements that show he intended this to be a Muslim ban.”It may be that no one quote from Trump or any of his advisers sufficiently proves the point, but rather that the totality of his statements throughout the campaign do. “Even if the government were to try to pick apart ambiguities in each individual statement, there’s no question that all of the statements together prove discriminatory intent,” Gelernt added.
No it isn't, and no he didn't!
What would you call a ban of citizens from Muslim majority countries where non Muslims from said countries are given preferential treatment?
