I’d say the often hysterical reaction to the election of Trump and his executive orders is baffling to me, but based on my view of politics, it isn’t baffling at all – it’s something I expected. However, I don’t see much in the way of rational, principled justification for the kind of over-the-top anti-Trump behavior we find not only at the street level, but also in the implied (if not outright) consent and support such intimidating and violent tactics are often provided in public forums by many politicians and media figures. We’ve had people call for the removal of Trump by “any means necessary” and calling for impeachment, military coups and even assassination.
From my perspective, the hysteria is fueled by two things; an identity-politics, virtue-signalling culture that is largely bereft of critical thinking skills and any foundation of reasoned, civil discourse; and an information/media complex that signals, via various figures of authority or popularity, preferred behaviors. (I’ll leave out my third view: that third-party manipulators are paying for agitation towards political and financial ends).
I voted for Trump purely because I agreed with virtually all of his platform. Usually when I encounter someone who didn’t vote for Trump, I immediately notice an obvious emotional quality to their perspective – they hate or are disgusted by the guy personally, but can’t even tell me what his policy positions are. They immediately assume I am racist, misogynistic, islamophobic, etc.
I wonder if it’s possible to have a rational discussion about Trump and his policies and actions since being elected with anyone who voted against him? Do any of you think the way he is being characterized by the mainstream media is unfair? Do any of you think that there has been a double-standard from the way people and the press reacted to Obama’s actions, and the way they are reacting to Trump’s? Do any of you think the election was “illegitimate”?
Mung does not seem to realize that for much of human history athiests were not tolerated at all. When do you think there will be an athiest president of the USA? Not in my lifetime I’m quite sure.
Much ironically, I suspect Trump is actually an atheist and a sociopath and has simply no qualms about playing the Christian-card just to get their votes.
A more unintelligent version of President Frank Underwood from the TV series House of Cards.
Acartia, are you under the mistaken notion that Islam is a homogenous religion? By far, most religious persecution in those countries is one muslim sect persecuting those of another, minority sect. Nobody knows this distinction better than the USA – colonized and established largely by Christians being persecuted by other Christians.
Besides, religious persecution in the home country was already a legal aspect for the approval for asylum seekers. It’s hard to claim that one is being persecuted due to their religion if they are a member of the dominant religion or religious sect of that nation, which makes it entirely reasonable to move Christians and Yazidis up to the front of the line, because the automatically fit the bill without having to demonstrate whether they are sunni or shiite.
Once again, the facts of the E.O. plainly demonstrate that it is not a Muslim ban. It’s a reasonable attempt to put a pause on immigration from certain already-identified trouble areas and prioritize the waiver process for the duration while we put better infrastructure in place to vet incoming immigrants. That is the neutral, charitable interpretation of the E.O., bereft of political and emotional bias.
Muslim ban:
“Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on.”
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trump-statement-on-preventing-muslim-immigration
Since it is estimated that 43 % of the refugees last year were Christians and 60% of the legal immigrants were ,the answer seems no.
Nice injection of race into the discussion
Openly atheist, I agree.
So are these: “The first sentence of this article has been changed from “…significant minorities embrace supremacist notions” to read “…of those polled a significant minority embraces the supremacist notions” to eliminate any ambiguity. Despite our best efforts, numerous media outlets have serially misrepresented this sentence and used it to claim that The Center holds the survey as representative of all Muslims in the United States. The Center has been consistent with claims that the results are of those individual Muslims polled and the “significant minorities” in the first sentence is a specific reference to participants of the survey we referenced immediately prior. We at the Center have consistently stood by the results of our poll and we will continue to do so.”
WJM sez:
What do you base that view on?
I’ve said already. The US has one of, if not THE, most rigorous and cautious vetting systems on the planet — any war refugees face dealing with around 17 government agencies before they can even approach the border, and the process takes upwards to 2 years. With this current level of immigration security, guess how many terrorist acts have been committed on US soil by Islamist militants in the last 10 years? Guess how many have been committed by American and Canadian naturals?
Whereas the words of Trump and Rudy indicate it is
Which infrastructure already exists in those countries and up to this time has proven 100% effective, whereas other countries vetting procedures have not be so demonstrated. Any terrorist seeking entry would be aware of this differential vetting.
So if you must pause,pausing the immigration for all countries other than those six would be the most effective to the goal of putting in better infrastructure . The decision to do otherwise SMACKS of political correctness and unnecessarily endangers the lives of Americans from the less likely risk of being killed by a terrorist than shot by a toddler.
On the contrary it assumes the position that an EO based political and emotional considerations can be interpreted accurately bereft of those considerations and the statements of the signee of that EO.
That’s an interesting way framing the debate. Let’s ask instead: since 9/11, how many foreign-born immigrants have been convicted of terrorism in the USA?
They could not determine the origin of 129 of the remaining terrorists, but if the ratio holds, that’s another 110 that were foreign-born. That’s almost 500 foreign-born immigrants that have been convicted of terrorism in the USA.
Now, I wonder why you and others don’t refer to this when you consider and debate the Trump E.O.? Could it be that you didn’t know? Or are you just parroting the same convenient talking points that frame the debate in a way that hides these facts? Just because the FBI and other agencies catch them before they commit the act is not the same thing as the idea that almost no terrorists are using immigration to enter this country.
And that’s not even a comprehensive number, because not all records of terroristic activities and deportations were available to Sessions before he released this information back in June.
I agree that would be the most effective, however I already addressed this. Those countries, already subject to travel restrictions and posing little problem in terms of military/economic entanglements, were the low hanging fruit Trump could do something about quickly. That doesn’t mean that’s all he’s going to do.
However, given that some states and courts are challenging this, it’s just as well to start with these seven to get a SCOTUS ruling before going any further.
As above, the process to distinguish and enforce what you advocate here is a much bigger threat to your liberty and mine than the beliefs of immigrants you want to keep out. Your “cure” is WAY more destructive to the goals you seek than your “cure”.
That’s why. To get what you ostensibly want you need to threaten and eliminate what you want. A government that would filter out the right muslims and other brown people would necessarily not uphold the values and principles of freedom and liberty you (ostensibly) value.
WJM:
Well, that hinges on your definition of “ideological screening”. The 1990 act was aimed at fixing the McCarthy-era McCarran-Walter Act of 1952, which allowed the deportation of permanent resident aliens for distributing communist literature.
The US tightened up its screening again in the early 2000’s.
As others have noted, of the more than 3 million refugees admitted to the country since 1980, exactly zero have carried out a fatal terrorist attack on U.S. soil; you should really be worried about toddlers with guns.
I did enjoy your quoting an unsourced Breitbart article, and then whining about “just parroting the same convenient talking points”…
No William, you were not “just pointing at the facts that show it is rational to have concerns”. You wrote:
And I’m not interested in what you would do if you were, hypothetically, even more ignorant. I have Sudoku for that.
Erik,
In response to my statement:
you write:
Did you not read what I said at the beginning of my post?
By “works,” I did not mean “yields accurate information.” (Obviously, it doesn’t: people often confess to anything and everything.) Rather, what I meant was: “forces stubborn people to divulge secret information that they would rather not divulge.”
In no way was I morally endorsing torture (although I’m of two minds regarding the “ticking time bomb” scenario). I was just observing that torture works, in the sense defined above. You then add:
Not so. Evidently you haven’t read about Fr. Cristóvão Ferreira, who was the Portuguese Provincial Superior of the Jesuit mission to Japan, and who renounced his faith after being tortured for five hours, in 1633:
Here’s a quote from the article:
Torture does work – even on true believers. That’s precisely why it’s so horrible. It led to the Catholic Church pulling their missionaries out of Japan altogether, for more than 200 years, until 1864. They knew when they were beaten. The Romans were far gentler in their treatment of Christians. Only about 5,000 were martyred over a period of 300 years. That’s why Christianity was able to get a toehold in the Roman Empire – because the Romans were rather squeamish about the practice of torture. (Roman citizens could not be tortured, for instance.)
Economic entanglements with foreigners matter more than the lives of millions of white fundamental Christians hanging perilously in the balance?
“We assembled here today are issuing a new decree to be heard in every city, in every foreign capital, and in every hall of power. From this day forward, a new vision will govern our land. From this day forward, it’s going to be only America first, America first.”
Embrace the vision of the man you voted for.
Disagree , while I think the original plan was a mistake there is no point waiting around like some SJW for a bunch of so called judges for permission to execute the lawful order of the President.
Immediately Bannon,I mean Trump, should issue a ban on another hot bed of terrorism,think of the lives saved, if an injunction is granted, issue another ban to another country,more lives saved, rinse and repeat. Sort of the strategy Trump employed with contractors , bury them in an avalanche of paper.
Terrorists will be forced to kill foreigners.
Walto
Google. Samantha Bee, The Original Trump Haters
So the reason people say it does not provide useful information is because we are too nice?
Read the EO. As an EO, it is law unless overthrown by the courts. Does the EO say anything about religious sects or denominations? No. it clearly mentions “minority religion“. Muslim, Christian, Hindu, etc.
We agree on that people often confess to anything and everything. But how do you know someone has some secret information to divulge and is just being stubborn? If you have spied spied on your subject 24/7 and you have solid evidence that you have a terrorist in your hands, then we are indeed dealing with an immoral situation on both sides. Basically, you are saying immorality works. Well, that’s what you implied up front with “Regardless of what you think about the morality of torture”, so no problem there apparently.
Why this specific case and not thousands of self-confessed witches, for example?
One who renounces his faith is not a true believer. You know true believers precisely from that they don’t renounce their faith, ever. “Steadfast to the end…” etc. On true believers, torture doesn’t work by definition. Admittedly, they are rare, but therefore all the more valued.
I knew there was a reason I liked you, Phoodoo. Now if we can only get you to apply the same common-sense thinking towards science…
My reaction, I think, was to ignore the whole thing as nonsense. I didn’t watch the video. Pretty sure I made no comment whatsoever. Not sure I was even aware that Hillary was under attack. So no, I didn’t defend her. I also didn’t attack her.
Will do. Thanks.
(I so wish my daughter could get an internship with that show!)
Right, but you’re very quick to defend Trump–even when (IMHO) charges against him are much more evidence-based. That’s the difference I’m talking about.
You’re Team Trump all over.
Make America Great Again! 🙂
If you want me to stop liking you, you’re going to have to move into keiths territory.
Well, it’s actually off-topic, but whatever. I don’t really see much in your post except rhetoric. As far as the principles and sentiments that founded the country, you seem to forget that atheists couldn’t testify in court, the only public deist was run out of the country, and Muslims were regarded almost equal disdain. We’re talking about founders of the country that spent federal funds to proselytize native Americans and people on the frontier, and held formal Christian church services in the Capitol building. Not to mention swearing on the Bible to testify in a court of law. Your concept of the kind of principles the country was founded on depend, I think, of a typically atheistic and progressive re-imagination of the founding forefathers and documents that circulates through much of academia.
However, I’d like you to take a stab at answering a question Eric apparently didn’t want to: given your view, should we just have open borders – let anyone in who wants to come in? If not, why not? On what grounds would you refuse entry into the USA?
WJM,
So you agree with the idea that atheists are second class citizens when compared to Christians? And that should be reflected in the laws of the nation also? Do you think it’s an improvement that atheists can now testify in court, or a regression?
Can I answer this?
Of course you want to have a vetting process. What should not happen is that people are being stopped from coming based on who they are rather than on what they do (or have done, in the past). Because that would be upending a fundamental tenet of justice – that it is blind, that is applies to everyone equally regardless of who you are.
Violating this principle is precisely what is so vile about persecutions.
Looks like Bannon et al. might be planning to follow a modified version of this strategy.
That’s not what I said. My point is that eigenstate’s (and KN’s) view of what America is about, and what the principles and values are, is a reflection, apparently, of a progressive narrative that neither reflects the current values of mainstream America nor the values and principles of the founders.
I think a careful balance must be drawn between being a liberal democracy based on certain principles and values, and allowing people to destroy that liberal democracy using those principles and values against it. While I can appreciate eigenstate’s (and Erik’s) idealistic values and principles that they apparently would carry even into ruin, I’m not an idealist. I’m a pragmatist.
As a pragmatist, I hold that while such values and principles are laudable, they can only extend so far before one is being foolish, even self-destructive.
BTW, day 22 and Trump is still way exceeding expectations. ICE is currently rounding up and actually deporting criminal illegals, and several cities are dropping their sanctuary status due to threat of losing federal funding.
Supposedly, there are some pretty high-level DC indictments coming soon, along with broader low-level arrests. KN, you might want to make sure your go bag is ready.
Let’s explore that perspective a bit; what if 1 million radical, self-described Jihadists who hate western values and believe that America should be destroyed from within, and that gays should be beheaded, women should behave and be treated like property and that it is okay to rape children, but there is no evidence that any of them have actually committed any of what we would call criminal activities (no evidence that they didn’t, either – we just don’t have any evidence on them) – in practice, in order to adhere to your principle of Justice, we should go ahead and let them into the USA?
Wish I could plagiarize this all over the web.
Just a nit. A non-trivial number of nonvoters were also Trump supporters. I know of several first-hand. That would raise your 25% number, maybe to as high as 30%. Still, your main point stands.
Obama wasn’t elected by a minority. Obama didn’t run on a platform of encouraging intimidation and violence towards his opponents. Trump did. You could call some of this self-defense, misdirected as it surely is.
Creamer, a man who had weekly White House visits, and dozens of visits with Obama, admitted on camera that he hired rioters to disrupt Trump rallies.
Now that the election is over, who are beating up people and breaking windows and calling for the assassination of the president?
Can you name a single celebrity or teacher or journalist who tweeted that Obama should be killed?
petrushka,
Given that Trump himself called for revolt … of course that’s not quite calling for violence and murder. Deposed leaders in coups are always just sent to live on a farm.
I must be old fashioned. I still see a difference between arguing a beating people with sticks while they are unconscious on the ground.
And a difference between giving speeches and blocking interstate highways.
Of some interest are the relative effectiveness of these tactics. I’ve been around a while, and the last time we had a decade of campaign by tantrum, we got Nixon and Reagan. Hand, hot stove, repeat.
petrushka:
I haven’t broken any windows ,beaten up anyone or called for Trump’s assassination. As far as I know every window is intact in the entire city, no reports from the women’s march here reports any people beaten up. There used to be a house with an Obama effigy hanging with a noose but have not seen a Trump one yet.
Tweeted? The head of Trump’s campaign ” Asked what he would most like to happen in 2017, Paladino responded that he hoped “Obama catches mad cow disease after being caught having relations” with a cow, dies and is buried in a cow pasture.
Asked who he would like to see “go away,” he said Michelle Obama.
“I’d like her to return to being a male and let loose in the outback of Zimbabwe where she lives comfortably in a cave with Maxie, the gorilla,
Ted Nugent said it.
Curious which teachers and journalists tweeted Trump should be killed? Could you link these tweets
Of course, just curious did Hillary or Obama offer publically to financially help any supporter caught doing it?
Yes, one can be largely ignored ,the other can’t.
We got civil rights and an end to the war in Vietnam
Ted Nugent said he wanted to shoot hillary in the vagina with his AR-15, but I don’t think he used the word vagina.
The US is not admitting 1 million refugees regardless of their feelings, so this seems moot. But let say we have one who feels
Beheading anyone in the US is a crime without invoking the “stand your ground” defense.Admitting the intention to commit a crime would be an problem.
If he cited the Bible as support?
Criminal activity
Do you know these thing just looking at them or did they tell you they felt this way?
She was only running for president, it is different.
Hi newton,
You ask:
Curious which teachers and journalists tweeted Trump should be killed?
Try Jesse Benn over at The Huffington Post: “Sorry Liberals, A Violent Response To Trump Is As Logical As Any”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jesse-benn/sorry-liberals-a-violent-_b_10316186.html
Or try British Sunday Times columnist India Knight, who recently tweeted: “The assassination is taking such a long time.” (see https://twitter.com/PrisonPlanet/status/825727556200574979/photo/1 )
Or try Nesrine Malik over at The Guardian, who refuses to condemn violence against “racists” (a term she does not define):
What about celebrities? Try Madonna, who publicly declared that she had fantasized about blowing up the White House:
http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/01/21/madonna-at-womens-rally-in-d-c-i-have-thought-an-awful-lot-about-blowing-up-the-white-house/
I think the left has an anger management problem.
newton,
It’s called a hypothetical, Newton. Here I’m using to explore eigenstate’s fidelity to his principle. Do you share his principle about justice? Are you up to answering it?
If you are asking about eliminating customs checks, “open borders” where we don’t bother to inquire or check who’s entering the country, no of course not, that would be a huge security fail.
Like security monitoring and law enforcement inside our borders (at least the way America has done before Trump), border security should be focused on individuals and probable cause. If someone from Syria, or Canada, has security risks we can objectively identify, then we have a compelling and rational basis to at least review further and if warranted deny entry (or possibly even arrest) the individual.
That’s just the way security works, or has, in America. We’re not wusses. Rather, we are strong enough (or were) to demand that we tailor or sanctions to the actual actors of concern. We don’t assign “guilt by association”. As a practical matter then, we don’t impute security risks to a Muslim or atheist any more than we would to a Christian, simply due to their religion. If any of these attempts entry and we have reasonable suspicions that that individual, irrespective of creed or country of origin, is a credible threat, we take action.
To promote “security” the Trump way, through guilt-by-association and religious/ethnic biases is to abandon the principles that have proven themselves not only effective, but just and considerate of the liberties of all over the last two centuries.
As a policy, then, we can welcome all and any through our borders, as a starting point, but we do honest and focused “police work” in vetting entry. We don’t (before Trump anyway) make an open practice of pulling over black Americans because they are black by police officers who might be operating under the impression that black people are more naturally criminal — this has to be done surreptitiously where its done by modern LEOs, under false pretenses of a “tail light being out”, or some such. Drivers, of whatever creed or color, have to actually exhibit dangerous or unlawful behavior to warrant detention/citation/arrest.
It will be good if Trump’s narcissism compels him to pursue vindication from his loss at the 9th Circuit, and to engage in a full hearing on the merits. Discovery’s a bitch, and that I suspect will provide compelling evidence that Trump’s claims about “security” are wholly indefensible, in light of the Trump administration’s own data and internal rationales to support the EO as effective toward security at all. For Trump, “national security” doesn’t mean “keeping actual threats out or at bay”, it means security for damaged egos and prospects for white supremacist hegemony in America. Too little too late for that, but the desire for such security is intense in with tens of millions of deplorables, and Trump aims to deliver that kind of revenge if possible, to assuage their angst and dread.
If someone asking to clear customs has security risks attached to them, to that person as an individual, then we are obliged to refuse. If they are “a risk because they are Muslim”, or simply because they are a Syrian national, that is neither effective as a security practice, is gratuitously harmful to the person in question, and only validates every bad thing about Trumpism for people across the world who are constantly trying to determine if America really is committed to positive principles or if that was a sham, and Trumpism really does reveal the execrable nature of the American view of the world.
Do you think that there aren’t 1 million US citizens already in the USA that have extremist ideas? Just go over to Stormfront for example, and read what people like that believe in.
Western democracies have legitimate means to deal with such ideas long before they result in too much damage. Overturning the bedrock of justice is not one of them, in fact it does the opposite: the democracy becomes that what it is trying to save itself from. Your approach is in the end utterly self-defeating.
So we should let more of the same in? Really?
Is there a law saying that we have to let people into the USA?
I understand but my feeling was the use of 1 million was an emotional argument so to make the analysis of the hypothetical more emotional than rational,since the topic of this thread was the removal of hysteria and replace it with the rational, that is what I did. Actually it was fair witness you were responding to.
I heard on the radio recently that only one of five cases that come to the Supreme Court from the Ninth Circuit end up being affirmed.
Where they are from?
https://www.facebook.com/paul.j.watson.71/videos/10154954866351171/