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.
Delivering on campaign promises AND cracking jokes along the way. Let the hand wringing from the outrage machine continue!
Deeply unpopular president does thing that his opponent do not like, also make joke. They express disliking what he is doing. Fan of president says they are whiners because president is doing what he promised, knowing that they would not like it.
In other news, Trump will never willful his promise to fix Obama care, because that is hard. Also those regulations he just formed a task force for, they will remain in place because that is also hard. But he tried and that is all that matters.
If you'll remember back a few posts ago, I talked about the relationship between Trump and spineless GOP legislators. Obamacare isn't just one executive order away.
On February 25 2017 10:19 KwarK wrote:
On February 25 2017 10:13 Danglars wrote: They were worried about government being able to vet refugees from the middle east, when ISIS promised and had snuck terrorists into the streams.
We absolutely get that people talk about this shit at the dinner table, especially after having read a facebook forward from their racist uncle. The problem is that there isn't actually a real problem underneath all the fears. It's not that Obama wasn't listening to the fears, it's that he was better informed. The solution to people being afraid isn't to pander harder to ignorance, and yet that's exactly what Trump did. The only positive note was that in his case he probably wasn't pandering, he was the racist uncle on facebook.
It comes back to Newt.
The real problem is this strange idea that the ivory tower elitists have lost track of the problems facing America because they're lost in all their facts, statistics and real news and won't stop spending all their time listening to experts. Somehow it's become reasonable for an individual who doesn't experience any violent crime to hear about it on his daily fearmongering Fox News segment and decide that he knows that the experts aren't doing enough.
Well, we know you subscribe to the racist uncles on FB and But They're Wrong theories. Kind of the reason this stuff had been bubbling up for a while before Trump hit the national scene with a major immigration message. And most of America didn't give a damn about Newt beyond Contract with America and the '94 revolt against Clinton.
Well, let's examine the claim. You said that the side of America that Trump tapped into was worried about the streams of ISIS terrorists hiding among the Syrian refugees, right? And thought that Obama wasn't doing enough to keep them safe from those. How many Americans killed by ISIS members posing as Syrian refugees would be an acceptable number for you in terms of Obama keeping us safe? Obviously you can never make a perfect system, but there are hundreds of millions of Americans. If, say, he kept the number of people killed by the ISIS refugees under five per year, would that get a passing grade?
Sorry, the quality of the debate today requires me to establish the basics before we go to implications. I do not say Obama didn't do enough, but you did snip that part out of the quote. I don't even know if you can do enough at this point in time, but Obama wouldn't even acknowledge justified fears. Terrorism is about more than net kill count since the aim is to spread fear, not to get people checking how many die from airplane crashes and determine whether or not to go to the mall. Now, at the basic level, can you first say that we know ISIS has promised to infiltrate refugee streams (hide among them before/after) (German Intelligence) and are responsible for prior terrorist attacks (eg Bataclan, also with a side of castration/sexual torture)? This all not to mention refugee violence (WaPo German NYE). Can you also confirm that there are extreme and enduring problems vetting terrorists embedded in refugee streams seeking harm on US citizens going about their daily lives? Because, frankly the moral argument, similar to why we view homicide as such a heinous crime and not in light of how few homicides happen relative to accidental deaths so who cares, is probably too nuanced for this forum. If we're talking about bridging "savage, despicable evil" (Chris Kyle), the implications of the threat of terror, and cold, hard statistics, we're in for a few too many paragraphs and much time I'd rather like to invest in something I'm being paid to do. This is just idle time at work and home and I know too well the divide in thinking about deaths from terrorism as something quite different than deaths from other means.
Justified fears? No refugee has carried out a terrorist attack in the United States since the 80s, and back then it was Cubans.
This is the problem. There is a completely ignorant section of the population who demand to know why their educated betters aren't doing more to help them feel safe but when you tell them the only way they'll feel safe is if they turn off their ridiculous propaganda tv station and read a fucking book they get angry.
ISIS are not getting in through the Syrian refugee program, whether or not the Trump voters were afraid they might be.
I believe they are called irrational fears. Of course they are real to the people who have them, but we shouldn't base our refugee policy around irrational fears.
And keeping America safe means not focusing on the least likely route for a terrorist to attack our county: The refugee program.
Not only does the U.S. do more vetting, they have the huge advantages of being roughly one bajillion miles from the warzone and not having to deal with hyperporous borders with their neighbors.
At the start of the game, the player has four different issues to take either a liberal, conservative, or centrist position on. The player must make wise use of his funds as he is trying to become the President of the United States of America. Being liberal offends the religious folks, being conservative offends the university students and working class voters, and being centrist (as in pleasing everybody) actually pleases nobody.
The list of "issues" in the game is quite entertaining.
Delivering on campaign promises AND cracking jokes along the way. Let the hand wringing from the outrage machine continue!
Deeply unpopular president does thing that his opponent do not like, also make joke. They express disliking what he is doing. Fan of president says they are whiners because president is doing what he promised, knowing that they would not like it.
In other news, Trump will never willful his promise to fix Obama care, because that is hard. Also those regulations he just formed a task force for, they will remain in place because that is also hard. But he tried and that is all that matters.
If you'll remember back a few posts ago, I talked about the relationship between Trump and spineless GOP legislators. Obamacare isn't just one executive order away.
On February 25 2017 10:19 KwarK wrote:
On February 25 2017 10:13 Danglars wrote: They were worried about government being able to vet refugees from the middle east, when ISIS promised and had snuck terrorists into the streams.
We absolutely get that people talk about this shit at the dinner table, especially after having read a facebook forward from their racist uncle. The problem is that there isn't actually a real problem underneath all the fears. It's not that Obama wasn't listening to the fears, it's that he was better informed. The solution to people being afraid isn't to pander harder to ignorance, and yet that's exactly what Trump did. The only positive note was that in his case he probably wasn't pandering, he was the racist uncle on facebook.
The real problem is this strange idea that the ivory tower elitists have lost track of the problems facing America because they're lost in all their facts, statistics and real news and won't stop spending all their time listening to experts. Somehow it's become reasonable for an individual who doesn't experience any violent crime to hear about it on his daily fearmongering Fox News segment and decide that he knows that the experts aren't doing enough.
Well, we know you subscribe to the racist uncles on FB and But They're Wrong theories. Kind of the reason this stuff had been bubbling up for a while before Trump hit the national scene with a major immigration message. And most of America didn't give a damn about Newt beyond Contract with America and the '94 revolt against Clinton.
Well, let's examine the claim. You said that the side of America that Trump tapped into was worried about the streams of ISIS terrorists hiding among the Syrian refugees, right? And thought that Obama wasn't doing enough to keep them safe from those. How many Americans killed by ISIS members posing as Syrian refugees would be an acceptable number for you in terms of Obama keeping us safe? Obviously you can never make a perfect system, but there are hundreds of millions of Americans. If, say, he kept the number of people killed by the ISIS refugees under five per year, would that get a passing grade?
Sorry, the quality of the debate today requires me to establish the basics before we go to implications. I do not say Obama didn't do enough, but you did snip that part out of the quote. I don't even know if you can do enough at this point in time, but Obama wouldn't even acknowledge justified fears. Terrorism is about more than net kill count since the aim is to spread fear, not to get people checking how many die from airplane crashes and determine whether or not to go to the mall. Now, at the basic level, can you first say that we know ISIS has promised to infiltrate refugee streams (hide among them before/after) (German Intelligence) and are responsible for prior terrorist attacks (eg Bataclan, also with a side of castration/sexual torture)? This all not to mention refugee violence (WaPo German NYE). Can you also confirm that there are extreme and enduring problems vetting terrorists embedded in refugee streams seeking harm on US citizens going about their daily lives? Because, frankly the moral argument, similar to why we view homicide as such a heinous crime and not in light of how few homicides happen relative to accidental deaths so who cares, is probably too nuanced for this forum. If we're talking about bridging "savage, despicable evil" (Chris Kyle), the implications of the threat of terror, and cold, hard statistics, we're in for a few too many paragraphs and much time I'd rather like to invest in something I'm being paid to do. This is just idle time at work and home and I know too well the divide in thinking about deaths from terrorism as something quite different than deaths from other means.
Justified fears? No refugee has carried out a terrorist attack in the United States since the 80s, and back then it was Cubans.
This is the problem. There is a completely ignorant section of the population who demand to know why their educated betters aren't doing more to help them feel safe but when you tell them the only way they'll feel safe is if they turn off their ridiculous propaganda tv station and read a fucking book they get angry.
ISIS are not getting in through the Syrian refugee program, whether or not the Trump voters were afraid they might be.
Which is why we shouldn't examine other first world countries that essentially paid the price. This is why I simply can't justify engagement on this issue. What gave rise to Trump once still exists to give him expanded majorities in 2018 and hurts civil debate today. My complacency is justified, your fears aren't, oh my God why is this blowhard in the White House it must be fake news and ignorant voters. America deserves better engagement than this.
In these debates about the dangers of terrorism and refugees, I almost never hear people defend the position that it is our moral obligation to help people in need even if it would hurt our economic development or crime rates. Now, I dont think the refugee crisis has had any effect on crime or the economy judging by all the statistics here in sweden (http://www.government.se/articles/2017/02/facts-about-migration-and-crime-in-sweden/), but even if that would be the case I wouldnt want to close our borders to people fleeing war, simply because that would be inhumane and I would feel ashamed to live in such a country.
I think the people who voted for Trump because they didn't want refugees are very unlikely to meet one in their lifetime even if the US takes all of Syria in.
The talk about the psyche of the Trump voter always seems to jump from "he knows our real problems" to some arbitrary thing that his voters would never come in contact with depending on what is convenient in the discussion.
On February 25 2017 11:46 Nyxisto wrote: I think the people who voted for Trump because they didn't want refugees are very unlikely to meet one in their lifetime even if the US takes all of Syria in.
The talk about the psyche of the Trump voter always seems to jump from "he knows our real problems" to some arbitrary thing that his voters would never come in contact with depending on what is convenient in the discussion.
All reporting on the subject backs up your view. Many of the areas that are "deeply concerned" about immigration and refugees have almost no minorities. Homogeneous in how white the areas are and how little chance they have to meet a refugee. The majority of their experience is through media, news and movies.
H.R. McMaster Breaks With Administration on Views of Islam
President Trump’s newly appointed national security adviser has told his staff that Muslims who commit terrorist acts are perverting their religion, rejecting a key ideological view of other senior Trump advisers and signaling a potentially more moderate approach to the Islamic world.
The adviser, Lt. Gen. H. R. McMaster, told the staff of the National Security Council on Thursday, in his first “all hands” staff meeting, that the label “radical Islamic terrorism” was not helpful because terrorists are “un-Islamic,” according to people who were in the meeting.
That is a repudiation of the language regularly used by both the president and General McMaster’s predecessor, Michael T. Flynn, who resigned last week after admitting that he had misled Vice President Mike Pence and other officials about a phone call with a Russian diplomat.
It is also a sign that General McMaster, a veteran of the Iraq war known for his sense of history and independent streak, might move the council away from the ideologically charged views of Mr. Flynn, who was also a three-star Army general before retiring.
Delivering on campaign promises AND cracking jokes along the way. Let the hand wringing from the outrage machine continue!
Deeply unpopular president does thing that his opponent do not like, also make joke. They express disliking what he is doing. Fan of president says they are whiners because president is doing what he promised, knowing that they would not like it.
In other news, Trump will never willful his promise to fix Obama care, because that is hard. Also those regulations he just formed a task force for, they will remain in place because that is also hard. But he tried and that is all that matters.
If you'll remember back a few posts ago, I talked about the relationship between Trump and spineless GOP legislators. Obamacare isn't just one executive order away.
On February 25 2017 10:19 KwarK wrote:
On February 25 2017 10:13 Danglars wrote: They were worried about government being able to vet refugees from the middle east, when ISIS promised and had snuck terrorists into the streams.
We absolutely get that people talk about this shit at the dinner table, especially after having read a facebook forward from their racist uncle. The problem is that there isn't actually a real problem underneath all the fears. It's not that Obama wasn't listening to the fears, it's that he was better informed. The solution to people being afraid isn't to pander harder to ignorance, and yet that's exactly what Trump did. The only positive note was that in his case he probably wasn't pandering, he was the racist uncle on facebook.
The real problem is this strange idea that the ivory tower elitists have lost track of the problems facing America because they're lost in all their facts, statistics and real news and won't stop spending all their time listening to experts. Somehow it's become reasonable for an individual who doesn't experience any violent crime to hear about it on his daily fearmongering Fox News segment and decide that he knows that the experts aren't doing enough.
Well, we know you subscribe to the racist uncles on FB and But They're Wrong theories. Kind of the reason this stuff had been bubbling up for a while before Trump hit the national scene with a major immigration message. And most of America didn't give a damn about Newt beyond Contract with America and the '94 revolt against Clinton.
Well, let's examine the claim. You said that the side of America that Trump tapped into was worried about the streams of ISIS terrorists hiding among the Syrian refugees, right? And thought that Obama wasn't doing enough to keep them safe from those. How many Americans killed by ISIS members posing as Syrian refugees would be an acceptable number for you in terms of Obama keeping us safe? Obviously you can never make a perfect system, but there are hundreds of millions of Americans. If, say, he kept the number of people killed by the ISIS refugees under five per year, would that get a passing grade?
Sorry, the quality of the debate today requires me to establish the basics before we go to implications. I do not say Obama didn't do enough, but you did snip that part out of the quote. I don't even know if you can do enough at this point in time, but Obama wouldn't even acknowledge justified fears. Terrorism is about more than net kill count since the aim is to spread fear, not to get people checking how many die from airplane crashes and determine whether or not to go to the mall. Now, at the basic level, can you first say that we know ISIS has promised to infiltrate refugee streams (hide among them before/after) (German Intelligence) and are responsible for prior terrorist attacks (eg Bataclan, also with a side of castration/sexual torture)? This all not to mention refugee violence (WaPo German NYE). Can you also confirm that there are extreme and enduring problems vetting terrorists embedded in refugee streams seeking harm on US citizens going about their daily lives? Because, frankly the moral argument, similar to why we view homicide as such a heinous crime and not in light of how few homicides happen relative to accidental deaths so who cares, is probably too nuanced for this forum. If we're talking about bridging "savage, despicable evil" (Chris Kyle), the implications of the threat of terror, and cold, hard statistics, we're in for a few too many paragraphs and much time I'd rather like to invest in something I'm being paid to do. This is just idle time at work and home and I know too well the divide in thinking about deaths from terrorism as something quite different than deaths from other means.
Justified fears? No refugee has carried out a terrorist attack in the United States since the 80s, and back then it was Cubans.
This is the problem. There is a completely ignorant section of the population who demand to know why their educated betters aren't doing more to help them feel safe but when you tell them the only way they'll feel safe is if they turn off their ridiculous propaganda tv station and read a fucking book they get angry.
ISIS are not getting in through the Syrian refugee program, whether or not the Trump voters were afraid they might be.
Which is why we shouldn't examine other first world countries that essentially paid the price. This is why I simply can't justify engagement on this issue. What gave rise to Trump once still exists to give him expanded majorities in 2018 and hurts civil debate today. My complacency is justified, your fears aren't, oh my God why is this blowhard in the White House it must be fake news and ignorant voters. America deserves better engagement than this.
It is fake news and ignorant voters. The people sitting around a dinner table discussing ISIS attacking America with refugees have no idea how carefully the refugees are vetted. If a single attack had ever taken place then maybe they would be justified. But it hasn't. So right now the evidence is firmly in my favour, the system works and we don't need to make changing it a single issue vote.
If you want me to stop acting so superior and thinking you're wrong you should try actually being right. Then we could agree. But when you're citing fears of an event that has never happened as justification for a change of policy you don't get the luxury of demanding that your fears be taken seriously. The answer to the hysterical question "how many Americans must be killed due to sloppy screening of refugees before we stop letting the refugees in?!?!" has to be "at least one".
H.R. McMaster Breaks With Administration on Views of Islam
President Trump’s newly appointed national security adviser has told his staff that Muslims who commit terrorist acts are perverting their religion, rejecting a key ideological view of other senior Trump advisers and signaling a potentially more moderate approach to the Islamic world.
The adviser, Lt. Gen. H. R. McMaster, told the staff of the National Security Council on Thursday, in his first “all hands” staff meeting, that the label “radical Islamic terrorism” was not helpful because terrorists are “un-Islamic,” according to people who were in the meeting.
That is a repudiation of the language regularly used by both the president and General McMaster’s predecessor, Michael T. Flynn, who resigned last week after admitting that he had misled Vice President Mike Pence and other officials about a phone call with a Russian diplomat.
It is also a sign that General McMaster, a veteran of the Iraq war known for his sense of history and independent streak, might move the council away from the ideologically charged views of Mr. Flynn, who was also a three-star Army general before retiring.
The most important goal of a weaker force in a non-symmetric war is to increase the number of participants, I think it was US military strategist John Boyd who pointed out that someone who has to use air power in such a situation has already lost. Trump's comments are basically the equivalent of this, all they do is increase the pool of potential ISIS recruits by expanding the conflict to all Muslims in the US.
This general seems to be intelligent enough to understand this, but pretty much everybody else with a brain has pointed this out before as well.
Analysts at the Homeland Security Department's intelligence arm found insufficient evidence that citizens of seven Muslim-majority countries included in President Donald Trump's travel ban pose a terror threat to the United States.
A draft document obtained by The Associated Press concludes that citizenship is an "unlikely indicator" of terrorism threats to the United States and that few people from the countries Trump listed in his travel ban have carried out attacks or been involved in terrorism-related activities in the U.S. since Syria's civil war started in 2011.
The ban, of course, was meant to be put in place only long enough for us to figure out what's going on. Hopefully Trump's team is on the matter and we will soon understand exactly what is happening over there.
On February 25 2017 11:45 Elroi wrote: In these debates about the dangers of terrorism and refugees, I almost never hear people defend the position that it is our moral obligation to help people in need even if it would hurt our economic development or crime rates. Now, I dont think the refugee crisis has had any effect on crime or the economy judging by all the statistics here in sweden (http://www.government.se/articles/2017/02/facts-about-migration-and-crime-in-sweden/), but even if that would be the case I wouldnt want to close our borders to people fleeing war, simply because that would be inhumane and I would feel ashamed to live in such a country.
the moral obligation only applies to people that look and sound like americans - actual view held by a lot of people
EPT
