Trump II

[Petrus]

"Point in fact, Trump just barely won. If not for about 80K voters in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania that gave Trump the electoral votes required to win, Hillary would be President now"

Thank God for the Electoral College, otherwise, we would have the lying and corrupt Clinton family enabled to continue their self-enrichment program at the expense of Americans while further degrading America in the eyes of the world and our citizens.

Maybe if the alt-left press would give him a chance and stop inventing mistruths about his agenda and personality, we might realize that he is going to move us forward and strengthen our standing in the world as the Republic we are.

Cheers,
Bud

At least some have some sense of humour left...

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

So, on that basis, that makes you and your daughter .. what ?

Non-Muslim.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

...Are you seriously telling me to not listen to what he says and just watch ... but not actually try to understand what Trump is talking about?...

No, I am actually telling you the opposite: to try to understand. The first step is not to take things literelly.

[Manoli]

Non-Muslim.

Hmmm ... perhaps, but immigrants nonetheless, so if I'm to follow your line of reasoning - then:

Same difference. The new immigrants just have not had their chance...yet.

.. and anyway I thought the US Constitution forbade discrimination on grounds of religion ?

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Hmmm ... perhaps, but immigrants nonetheless, so if I'm to follow your line of reasoning - then:

.. and anyway I thought the US Constitution forbade discrimination on grounds of religion ?

What we were clearly talking about was Muslim immigration, and the related rise in crime and rape in Sweden, and crime, rape, and terrorism in Europe. I ommitied that distinction for brevity, assuming everyone understands.

As for the US  constitution, it applies to citizens and those legally inside it. It does not apply to those wishing to come in. On the contrary, any US president has a legal power to stop any group of people, for any reason, from entering the US.

The US already has a precedent of "discriminating" based on religion: special program for Jews leaving the USSR in the 70s-80s.

[Ray]

This thread is very entertaining. It also makes me feel glad that I live in the egalitarian country of Australia which has a sound, social security network where everyone gets adequate medical treatment whatever their financial situation.

The most troubling aspect of the situation in the USA, is the national debt. A few years ago it was an enormous 9, 10 and 11 trillion dollars. Now it's close to 20 trillion dollars, or about $62,000 for every man, woman and child in the country.

That's the problem. Instead of quibbling about the accuracy of political statements from Donald Trump, you should focus on ways to reduce your national debt.

Attached is a graph of the US national debt between 1940 and 2015. It's only been greater, and then only slightly greater, towards the end of WW2.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Non-Muslim.

So Trump's new Executive Order should discriminate based on religion, and this time a.o. include countries like e.g. Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Egypt, and Lebanon, Pakistan, Indonesia? And then people wonder why those so-called judges are so keen on defending the law. Who's next, people with brown hair, below a certain level of income, colored skin (unless it's orange), ... ?

And that's even before we start addressing the lack of security discipline by Trump himself:
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/02/trumps-apparent-string-of-security-faux-pas-trigger-call-for-house-investigation/

Cheers,
Bart

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... Who's next, people with brown hair...

If "people with brown hair" gang up, establish a hundreds of thousands strong army, with millions of followers or admirers around the world, start bombing and killing everyone and everywhere, get hell-bent on imposing their brown-hair worldview on everyone else by force (e.g., trying to convert blonds into smarts), then...yes, they'd be next.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

This thread is very entertaining. It also makes me feel glad that I live in the egalitarian country of Australia which has a sound, social security network where everyone gets adequate medical treatment whatever their financial situation.

Hi Ray,

Like you, I'm glad to live in a Country that takes some (could be more in some cases, less or different in others) moral responsibility, and recognizes that 'the press' is a normal (if not indispensable) force in the system of checks and balances that go together with the mandate to govern a Country. Your PM Malcolm Turnbull sounds like a decent guy, although he is probably also not popular with all Australians.

Cheers,
Bart

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

If "people with brown hair" gang up, establish a hundreds of thousands strong army, with millions of followers or admirers around the world, start bombing and killing everyone and everywhere, get hell-bent on imposing their brown-hair worldview on everyone else by force (e.g., trying to convert blonds into smarts), then...yes, they'd be next.

Unless they supply oil and buy weapon systems, I'm sure.

Although ..
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/mattis-no-plan-to-seize-iraqi-oil-235200
Makes one wonder how long James Mattis will be tolerated by Trump.

Cheers,
Bart

[tom b]

List of Goldman Sachs Alumni in Donald Trump’s Administration:
Goldman Sachs appointees

Sorry, Republican battlers, you have been sold down the drain.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

List of Goldman Sachs Alumni in Donald Trump’s Administration...

Would you prefer rust-belt workers or the rednecks appointed instead?

[Ray]

Hi Ray,

Like you, I'm glad to live in a Country that takes some (could be more in some cases, less or different in others) moral responsibility, and recognizes that 'the press' is a normal (if not indispensable) force in the system of checks and balances that go together with the mandate to govern a Country. Your PM Malcolm Turnbull sounds like a decent guy, although he is probably also not popular with all Australians.

Cheers,
Bart

Hi Bart,
Australia is a big country which is not over-populated and has a generous social services system. It is therefore an attractive destination for refugees.

Without the harsh rules with regard to refugees arriving by boat, our country would eventually be swamped by Muslims.

I understand perfectly Donald Trump's comment that the deal to export our refugees to the USA, which we'd placed in detention centres outside Australia, was a 'dumb deal' (by Obama).

Why should the USA take refugees that Australia doesn't want? Of course it's a 'dumb deal' (from the American perspective).

Muslim refugees should go to other Muslim countries. Isn't that obvious?
If I were a Christian, I would not want to live permanently in a Muslim country. Likewise, if I were a Muslim, I would not want to live in a Christian country, or a predominately atheistic country.

Muslim refugees should flee to other Muslim countries, such as Saudi Arabia. That's bleeding obvious.

[HSakols]

Muslim refugees should go to other Muslim countries. Isn't that obvious?

This is absurd.  Yikes. 

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

...Likewise, if I were a Muslim, I would not want to live in a Christian country, or a predominately atheistic country...

Unless the goal is to turn it into a Muslim one.

[Ray]

This is absurd.  Yikes.

Why is it absurd? That's the point. Any opinion by whomever, is only worth the evidence and reasoning presented in support of the opinion.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Hi Bart,
Australia is a big country which is not over-populated and has a generous social services system. It is therefore an attractive destination for refugees.

One should make a distinction (which isn't always easy) between asylum seekers, refugees and economical fortune seekers or terrorists. Countries have a legal obligation to give shelter to asylum seekers and refugees. Views on moral obligation differ between civilisations or those pretending to be. This does not mean these people will stay, but they will receive food, shelter, basic medical care, etc.

Muslim refugees should go to other Muslim countries. Isn't that obvious?

Not if they are fleeing (or have to fear) other Muslims, no, not obvious at all. There are several 'flavors' of Islam and they are rather intolerant amongst eachother. Would it be best to provide a safe place to stay (for a while) in the region they come from, sure. But if there are too many, one might be better off to spread the burdon a bit to avoid that direct neighbors collapse as well. One has to be pragmatic.

Muslim refugees should flee to other Muslim countries, such as Saudi Arabia. That's bleeding obvious.

Or, as a Kuwaiti gentleman said when interviewed in the street about Syrian refugees, "it's too expensive here for those refugees, they cant afford it".

Cheers,
Bart

[Rory]

Let's discus the root causes of the current situation.  What breeds terrorism and protectionist policies?

[Ray]

Unless the goal is to turn it into a Muslim one.

Exactly! That's the concern of most Australians.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

...Or, as a Kuwaiti gentleman said when interviewed in the street about Syrian refugees, "it's too expensive here for those refugees, they cant afford it".

Wouldn't Kuwait also have a "legal obligation" to give shelter to asylum seekers and refugees, and provide them with "food, shelter, basic medical care, etc."?

Or is it only a "legal obligation" of idealistic (or is it spelled "idiotic"?) countries, committing a cultural suicide?