Trump II

[Chris Kern]

I'm out of this discussion, xenophobia is not my cup of tea.

Actually, too bad.  I came late to this thread, but I've found it interesting because of (1) its multinational participants (although I'd like to hear from more Latin Americans and Asians) and (2) its generally civilized debate.

I'm more in agreement with you, Jeff and Bart than with Alan Klein and Slobodan, but I respect the latter two for standing their ground (probably a poor choice of words, given that phrase's currency with the gun lobby) against the majority of commenters, and I've learned something from reading their points-of-view because they are more articulate than many of the Trump supporters on cable TV.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

I usually check before I state something. But for your education, see the following:

Source: https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefing-paper/70

Therefore, in the broader sense, in which you use the term, those fleeing wars are refugees, but those successful asylum seekers just as well.

And in a stricter sense Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was a naturalized US citizen when his brother and he committed the terrible bombing and subsequent shooting in 2013. (The Tsarnaev family settled in Cambridge and became U.S. permanent residents in March 2007. He became a naturalized U.S. citizen on September 11, 2012, while in college).

Not that that proves anything, because the thousands of others like them didn't start bombing others. Thousands of others do get killed each year by gun violence though.

Cheers,
Bart

[Christopher Sanderson]

Try not to 'bomb' each other. As someone pointed out this has been a reasonably civilized discussion to this point.

There is no easy answer to the relations between religions and cultures.

If you feel inflamed or perhaps better yet in need of a good read, try Simon Sebag Motefiore's Jerusalem - The Biography Highly recommended.

[Manoli]

Therefore, in the broader sense, in which you use the term, those fleeing wars are refugees, but those successful asylum seekers just as well.

Which has bugger-all to do with the original Tsarnaev tourist visas and even less to do with the fact that Tsarnaev was a naturalized US citizen at the time of the Boston bombing. Now, if you can disprove my earlier statement

since the US refugee programme began in 1975, more than 3.2m refugees have entered the US and only three have carried out a deadly terrorist attack.

with an incontrovertible fact, then do so.

[tom b]

Beware of beds, lawnmowers and toddlers!

Link

Cheers,

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... suggest you try and understand the difference between a refugee and someone seeking political asylum. 

Manoli, you first tried to lecture me on the difference. I proved you wrong.

You then moved the goalposts to the progression tourist visa - refugee - naturalized citizen. As if becoming a naturalized citizen from a refugee status somehow annuls the fact they were let into the country (or allowed to stay in it) as refugees. Would I really care if they blow me into pieces one day before of one day after they change their refugee status?

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

Beware of beds, lawnmowers and toddlers!

Link

Cheers,

I suggest a compromise. Lets ask Trump to ban all armed toddlers from those Islamic states on his baddie list!   

[Farmer]

Correct. At some point you'd expect people to accept that that's the way he speaks, that's his personality, broad-brush, big picture, intuitive. Or they can keep taking him literally and deliberately misinterpreting the context.

For PotUS?  No, it's not acceptable.  You don't get a pass on doing something wrong just because you do it a lot - usually, in business, when you keep doing something wrong the boss says, "YOU'RE FIRED!".

[Farmer]

Exactly! That's the concern of most Australians.

I wouldn't say "most", Ray.  It may be your concern, and it's certainly a concern of a significant number, but I've not seen anything to suggest that number was "most".

[Farmer]

No, luckily we have higher courts, and ultimately the Supreme Court.

Which the administration has chosen so far not to appeal to, but rather are preparing a revised EO.  Perhaps they finally listened to someone with some legal training who told them the first attempt was rubbish?  Let's be clear - if Trump thought he could win an appeal he'd go for it because it would make him look good.

[Farmer]

And yet, they are all billionaires. What's not to like about it?

You think I would rather have a guy who never worked a day in his life? Never built something, never created jobs for anyone, never took risks, never learned how to make things work. Someone who made a career of bitching and moaning? I am talking about Bernie Sanders, of course.

You realise if Trump had invested his inheritance in an index fund it would have made more than he has with his businesses?

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

You realise if Trump had invested his inheritance in an index fund it would have made more than he has with his businesses?

I already debunked that in another forum, so if you'd be more specific, and quote which figures and time periods you have in mind, I'll work with that too.

But you realise that if everyone would put money in index funds, who would produce, build or create anything? You can't have a nation of investors, someone has to do something with that money. The fact that index funds are making any money is THANKS to people like Trump who DO something.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

...Let's be clear - if Trump thought he could win an appeal he'd go for it because it would make him look good.

Winning via the Supreme Court might take years. He wants results now, hence the revision.

[Farmer]

Winning via the Supreme Court might take years. He wants results now, hence the revision.

There's no way such an item would take years to get to the SCotUS and the hearings are generally very quick - usually 30 minutes oral argument each way.

The revision is not due to expediency.

[Farmer]

I already debunked that in another forum, so if you'd be more specific, and quote which figures and time periods you have in mind, I'll work with that too.

But you realise that if everyone would put money in index funds, who would produce, build or create anything? You can't have a nation of investors, someone has to do something with that money. The fact that index funds are making any money is THANKS to people like Trump who DO something.

But he doesn't do much.  He's not a manufacturer, he doesn't invent.  He's not part of the index (his business isn't nearly large enough).  If he invested in other, better businesses, he'd help to finance them to do more than he has been able to do himself.

It's OK that he's not part of the index or not above average, so long as he's not held out to be some sort of business whiz (because he's not).

Also, please link your debunking - I haven't seen it and would like to review it.

[Ray]

I wouldn't say "most", Ray.  It may be your concern, and it's certainly a concern of a significant number, but I've not seen anything to suggest that number was "most".

I would suggest if the results of a recent poll are accurate, whereby 49% of respondents claim they would actually support a ban on Muslim immigration in general, not just a ban on Muslim refugees, then the general concern or worry about the Islamification of Australia is probably greater than 50% of the population because there will likely be a significant number of people who, although concerned, would not go so far as to support the extreme measure of banning all Muslim immigration.

"As revealed in The Guardian, polling service Essential asked "Would you support or oppose a ban on Muslim immigration to Australia?" They found that 49 percent of respondents would support it. Just 40 percent opposed it. Of the supporters, 40 percent claimed Muslims "do not integrate into Australian society", 27 percent cited "terrorist threat", and 22 percent said "They do not share our values".

http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/2016/09/20/half-of-australia-wants-to-ban-muslim-migration-heres-why-that/

[Farmer]

Meh - a single poll from 5 months ago commissioned by someone outside of Australia is not inspiring me with confidence in the results.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... Also, please link your debunking - I haven't seen it and would like to review it.

Unfortunately, not in this forum. It was my comment on a friend's friend link to an article on Facebook, a year ago, and now impossible to find.

It is also specific as to what numbers and time period one compares, so if you have a source, I'd try again.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

There's no way such an item would take years to get to the SCotUS and the hearings are generally very quick - usually 30 minutes oral argument each way...

Last year, Obama's own executive order on immigration waited a whole year to come to the court.

[Ray]

Meh - a single poll from 5 months ago commissioned by someone outside of Australia is not inspiring me with confidence in the results.

Fair enough! It's a very expensive exercise to get an accurate assessment of public opinion on any issue.

That Essential Report poll could well have been flawed due to the limited choice of options presented by the questions. It was apparently requesting a 'yes or no' response. Do you support a ban on Muslim immigration? Yes or No.

The following ABC article addresses the issue.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-09-27/beware-survey-that-found-1-in-2-favour-muslim-immigration-ban/7880526

Personally, the only objection I would have to any religion is when the rules of the religion are imposed on me. I believe in the freedom to make my own choices
Islam has the reputation of imposing very strict rules, not only on its adherents, but also on infidels, as I'm sure you know.