|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On November 24 2015 08:07 KwarK wrote:
A citizen holding a knife is still a citizen who deserves protecting from the police. This would have been resolved non fatally in Europe. If he is an imminent threat to another person and lethal force is the lesser of two evils then it can be justified on those terms, although it is still a failure of policing (in the sense that while they tried their best they did not achieve what they set out to do that day).
this is very true. cops got unions though and management tend to hush hush the disciplinary proceedings. it will take a lot of guys losing jobs for anything to change
|
On November 24 2015 05:34 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2015 05:20 Danglars wrote:And so if someone has never made a ripple in the pond in Syria in a way that would get their identity or their
interest reflected in our database, we can query our database until the cows come home, but there will be nothing
showing up because we have no record of them Words of Obama-appointed FBI director Comey on the difficulty of screening refugees in the failed state. You can't go to the corresponding offices in Syria and check out somebody's story. The concerns are well-founded, despite the propaganda otherwise. I don't know how Obama thought lines about fear and paranoia would fly, or reciting widows and orphans over and over. It might've worked in the past, or still works with GOP leadership, but it won't cower regular Americans wary of the ramifications. Do you think the fear of Syrian refugees is proportionate to the threat? Would you say the average American fears Syrian refugees more than, say, being in a car accident?
I won't delve into proportionalities. I say the risk of infiltrated IS agents/sympathizers is enough to severely limit their immigration. It meets/surpasses that basic level from aforementioned impossibilities in vetting. Sidenote: It's reported (n=900) about one in eight syrian refugees have a positive/somewhat positive view of IS in general.
Quick recap of federal law. Title 8, section 1158
The burden of proof is on the applicant to establish that the applicant is a refugee, within the meaning of section 1101(a)(42)(A) of this title. To establish that the applicant is a refugee within the meaning of such section, the applicant must establish that race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion was or will be at least one central reason for persecuting the applicant.
section 1101
(42) The term “refugee” means (A) any person who is outside any country of such person’s nationality or, in the case of a person having no nationality, is outside any country in which such person last habitually resided, and who is unable or unwilling to return to, and is unable or unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of, that country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion, or (B) in such special circumstances as the President after appropriate consultation (as defined in section 1157(e) of this title) may specify, any person who is within the country of such person’s nationality or, in the case of a person having no nationality, within the country in which such person is habitually residing, and who is persecuted or who has a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. The term “refugee” does not include any person who ordered, incited, assisted, or otherwise participated in the persecution of any person on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. For purposes of determinations under this chapter, a person who has been forced to abort a pregnancy or to undergo involuntary sterilization, or who has been persecuted for failure or refusal to undergo such a procedure or for other resistance to a coercive population control program, shall be deemed to have been persecuted on account of political opinion, and a person who has a well founded fear that he or she will be forced to undergo such a procedure or subject to persecution for such failure, refusal, or resistance shall be deemed to have a well founded fear of persecution on account of political opinion.
I've heard enough of the demagoguery on "religious tests." It's in the U.S. code. Civil wars are messy and generally about power. It doesn't entitle one side or the other to refugee status by default. You can see Christians claim it based on religion since IS has burnt down their churches, destroying some of the oldest Christian communities on the planet. If you're a Muslim, IS seeks to be the ruling government over you. If your sect, e.g. Yazidi, is persecuted, by all means apply. It seems like people think refugee in US law simply means present in combat zone without currently shooting weapons at one side or the other.
Back to topic: I know where you're going with irrationality & car accidents, but welcome to the human condition. Terrorism hits on a different level than health risk to car accidents. And typically, other drivers will not first ask if you can recite from the Koran before negligently ramming their car into you. That would be the terrorists in the Bamako, Mali hotel that do that sort of thing.
|
|
|
On November 24 2015 09:23 Danglars wrote:
You can see Christians claim it based on religion since IS has burnt down their churches, destroying some of the oldest Christian communities on the planet. If you're a Muslim, IS seeks to be the ruling government over you. If your sect, e.g. Yazidi, is persecuted, by all means apply. It seems like people think refugee in US law simply means present in combat zone without currently shooting weapons at one side or the other.
Because IS is totally not killing any Muslims and totally not burning down any mosques. Those guys want to destroy the fucking Kaaba. That's like saying someone who wants to set the Pope on fire is a Catholic
|
I am sure that "somewhat positive view of ISIS" is due to the fact that the majority of the refugees are from the area besieged by Assad forces and they have a lightly positive view of anyone attacking Assad. They also might not have directly interaction with ISIS and have exposure to the same media coverage that we do. Of course there are going to be people that we don't accept due to concerns about ISIS, but the FBI really doesn't need a poll to figure that out.
|
if anyone hasn't kept track with everything trumps claimed BBC has a nice little list of all of them. shows his campaign policies too. I'll post a few things I wasn't already aware of.
Donald Trump: 21 things the Republican believes
13. Current unemployment statistics are wrong. Trump has said repeatedly that unemployment in the US is at 20% - once commenting it may be as high as 42% - despite the fact that the Bureau of Labor Statistics pegs the number at 5.1%. Trump says he doesn't believe that figure is real.
18. The world would be better offif Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddhafi were still in power. Trump told CNN that he believes the situation in both Libya and Iraq is "far worse" than it ever was under the two deceased dictators. While he concedes Hussein was a "horrible guy", he says he did a better job combating terrorists.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34903577
|
If trump is looking at how many people are not working vs the actual definition of "unemployed", he's not too far off.
|
On November 24 2015 07:43 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2015 07:37 heliusx wrote:On November 24 2015 07:00 GreenHorizons wrote: There is no doubt Americans are shit at putting threats into proportion. Ikr going by statistics we should be afraid of black people... considering they're by far the most likely to kill in our society. I think the stats show I should really fear white people a lot more, tbh. http://www.amren.com/news/2015/07/new-doj-statistics-on-race-and-violent-crime/
Most people aren't violent criminals, so the same logic tells you to not fear white people a lot more...
If you really want to go the route of judging how much you should fear a random person based on superficial features, at least get the stats right.
|
On November 24 2015 11:37 killa_robot wrote:
If trump is looking at how many people are not working vs the actual definition of "unemployed", he's not too far off.
That would mean there are more people off unemployment that are jobless than are on it. That is getting into some chem trails level of logic.
|
On November 24 2015 09:29 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2015 09:23 Danglars wrote:
You can see Christians claim it based on religion since IS has burnt down their churches, destroying some of the oldest Christian communities on the planet. If you're a Muslim, IS seeks to be the ruling government over you. If your sect, e.g. Yazidi, is persecuted, by all means apply. It seems like people think refugee in US law simply means present in combat zone without currently shooting weapons at one side or the other.
Because IS is totally not killing any Muslims and totally not burning down any mosques. Those guys want to destroy the fucking Kaaba. That's like saying someone who wants to set the Pope on fire is a Catholic
Why do they want to destroy the kaaba?
|
because they think all kinds of symbols and temples and so on are idolatry, they've kind of cranked up the whole "god is abstract and must not be depicted" thing to 11.
|
But really its because they want power and control. Its all just an excuse.
|
On November 24 2015 12:48 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2015 11:37 killa_robot wrote:
If trump is looking at how many people are not working vs the actual definition of "unemployed", he's not too far off. That would mean there are more people off unemployment that are jobless than are on it. That is getting into some chem trails level of logic.
Not really; given the declines in the laborforce participation rate:
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000
a lot of people have been unemployed for so long that they're no longer on unemployment and just gave up looking. (or if they're new to the labor force they've not been able to get anything for so long that they likewise stopped looking.
|
On November 24 2015 12:55 Plansix wrote:
But really its because they want power and control. Its all just an excuse.
might be a political thing too but aniconism is actually very prevalent among religious extremists. Protestants during the reformation and Evangelicals today employ the same kind of logic to "idolatrous" Catholic symbols.
|
On November 24 2015 13:02 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2015 12:48 Plansix wrote:On November 24 2015 11:37 killa_robot wrote:
If trump is looking at how many people are not working vs the actual definition of "unemployed", he's not too far off. That would mean there are more people off unemployment that are jobless than are on it. That is getting into some chem trails level of logic. Not really; given the declines in the laborforce participation rate: http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000a lot of people have been unemployed for so long that they're no longer on unemployment and just gave up looking. (or if they're new to the labor force they've not been able to get anything for so long that they likewise stopped looking.
Doesn't that number also count children and retirees?
Which, I think, was killa's point...
|
Those have to or we would have a 40% unemployment rate. And those numbers most likely reflect baby-boomers retiring as well. But citing that 20% of the work force is unemployed and then providing zero information to back it up is some Trump level bullshit.
|
On November 24 2015 13:05 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2015 13:02 zlefin wrote:On November 24 2015 12:48 Plansix wrote:On November 24 2015 11:37 killa_robot wrote:
If trump is looking at how many people are not working vs the actual definition of "unemployed", he's not too far off. That would mean there are more people off unemployment that are jobless than are on it. That is getting into some chem trails level of logic. Not really; given the declines in the laborforce participation rate: http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000a lot of people have been unemployed for so long that they're no longer on unemployment and just gave up looking. (or if they're new to the labor force they've not been able to get anything for so long that they likewise stopped looking. Doesn't that number also count children and retirees? Which, I think, was killa's point...
it does count retirees, but does not count children.
looking at the data for demographic changes and shifts in the amount of population over 65; that might account for half or so of the decline in labor force participation rate.
http://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/AGE765210/00
|
It counts kids 16 years or older, which includes all college students and the last two years of high school. That is not a number that should be ignored. Also I am not sure if it counts students with part time jobs during college and highschool.
Also, I think its weird to use the department of labor's reports when they are the ones reporting the employment rate at unemployment 5.1%. I think you need to concede that they are the experts of their own data.
|
On November 24 2015 14:33 Plansix wrote:
It counts kids 16 years or older, which includes all college students and the last two years of high school. That is not a number that should be ignored. Also I am not sure if it counts students with part time jobs during college and highschool.
Also, I think its weird to use the department of labor's reports when they are the ones reporting the employment rate at unemployment 5.1%. I think you need to concede that they are the experts of their own data.
i'm not sure who you're referring to in your second paragraph when you say "you"; I have a feeling that it might be me, even though that doesn't make sense because I never disputed their expertise.
on another note, keep in mind that there are several metrics one can use for unemployment:
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm
|
Looks like protesters in Minneapolis may have been the victims of a white supremacy terrorist attack. Police response has been lackluster. Already rumors they may have been associated with the police.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
