World is Falling Apart Thread (Locked forever)

[Sarge]

But it is saying there will be priority treatment for Christians from those countries.

Yes, it does. Well, not just Christians, but "minority religions", which includes others like the Yazidis. This actually makes a lot of sense to me, as they are in more danger in those countries than Muslims, although certainly certain Muslim sects experience issues as well.

When given refugee status, religion is one of the factors in the law that is used to determine whether that designation is granted or not. Most persecution in the world takes place on religious grounds, so it's unsurprising that we would use it as a determinant.

I also don't believe it actually stops Muslims from getting refugee status, it just gives more oppressed groups first shot.

[BogusMeatFactory]

But it is saying there will be priority treatment for Christians from those countries.

Yes, it does. Well, not just Christians, but "minority religions", which includes others like the Yazidis. This actually makes a lot of sense to me, as they are in more danger in those countries than Muslims, although certainly certain Muslim sects experience issues as well.

When given refugee status, religion is one of the factors in the law that is used to determine whether that designation is granted or not. Most persecution in the world takes place on religious grounds, so it's unsurprising that we would use it as a determinant.

I also don't believe it actually stops Muslims from getting refugee status, it just gives more oppressed groups first shot.

And that is discrimination based on religion.

[Sarge]

And that is discrimination based on religion.

The law literally requires a religious test, or at least having a religious test as a determinant in granting refugee status.

From 8 U.S. Code § 1158, (b) (1) (B) (1)

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.

Also, from 8 U.S. Code § 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.

[BogusMeatFactory]

but Muslims are affected by these terrorists just as much as Christians.

[Sarge]

Islamic terrorists are much more likely to target unbelievers before they target their own, although you are correct that they do often target their own.

I see our refugee program a bit like triage. You sort people out based on their respective levels of risk, and then act accordingly. So you try your best to get the "more" oppressed out first. I'm not saying Muslims don't also suffer from the terrorists' actions, but they are less likely to be persecuted than the minority religious sects in those countries.

Furthermore, we have already prioritized Muslims to this point. We have accepted 10,801 Syrian refugees as of around September of last year. The number of Christians? 56. In a country where Christians are estimated to be 10% of the population. That is half of a percent.

There are reasons this number is so low, though: the US accepts refugees through the UN camps, and those camps have proven too dangerous for Christians, which is a truly sad state of affairs.

[jp1]

Sarge, so let's discuss the poster. You take issue with the characterizations, I'd like to know which of them, and why? If you don't mind.

In my view, it is dangerously close to being on point. Enough so, that I wonder how anyone could dismiss it. Do I think that Trump is the next Hitler? No. But, only because as evil as Hitler was he was a smart leader, and Trump is not. Otherwise I could totally see him pulling the same type of shit. The fact that I'm not likely to fall under the category of people that he would clearly be happy to eradicate entirely is not relevant. The man is dangerous for different reasons, his big mouth coupled with his ridiculous hot temper and his lack of any real knowledge of foreign relations...or really anything, are to say the least, a concern.

Let's go over a few things.

He doesn't care about the environment.
He doesn't care about the working class.
He doesn't care about our relations with 90% of the world.
He is a sexist at least, and possibly a sex offender.
He is a proven failure with business, and has filed bankruptcy many times.
He uses scare tactics to rally the right into a frenzy.
He wants to control the media and what they can and cannot say.
He wants big military, big government on the policing side of things.
He clearly doesn't give a shit about education. It's easier to control stupid people.
He hasn't cut ties with his business, he could be profiting from decisions right now and you wouldn't know it.

I could go on, but I'm sure you know what else I might bring up. How do you continue to defend this man? It seems like you take offense to me posting that image, I really want to know why.

[Sarge]

Sarge, so let's discuss the poster. You take issue with the characterizations, I'd like to know which of them, and why? If you don't mind.

Sure, I can, but it might take a while.

The fact that I'm not likely to fall under the category of people that he would clearly be happy to eradicate entirely is not relevant.

You are effectively asserting that, if he had his druthers, he'd be killing groups of people. You don't see how this is dangerous? Hyperbolic? I mean, I can understand your concern, because I have issues with the man, too, but it feels like the only line you've drawn between him and Hitler is the fact that (you think) he's stupid and the Constitution keeps him in check, otherwise he'd be sending folks to the gas chamber.

The man is dangerous for different reasons, his big mouth coupled with his ridiculous hot temper and his lack of any real knowledge of foreign relations...or really anything, are to say the least, a concern.

I can agree with some of this. There are times where his brashness can be a positive attribute, and other times where it is clearly a negative. A good leader knows when to employ both.

"He doesn't care about the environment."
- I don't know if "doesn't care" is the right word, but he certainly leans more toward economic growth that environmental regulations. That's a really big discussion that would also take a long time.

"He doesn't care about the working class."
- You know this how?

"He doesn't care about our relations with 90% of the world."
- Doesn't care, or wishes to portray himself differently than his predecessor? Who knows? Some of his actions have been okay, some have been a bit cringeworthy.

"He is a sexist at least, and possibly a sex offender."
- Sexist? Probably. A sex offender? Gotta have proof of that. And I don't use the next example as a justification of bad behavior, but as an illustration of the hypocrisy of many on the left: Pres. Bill Clinton.

"He is a proven failure with business, and has filed bankruptcy many times."
- Risk is an inherent part of business. He's succeeded in some areas, failed in others. I'd refer you to this article for a different view.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/trumps-bu ... le/1031022

"He uses scare tactics to rally the right into a frenzy."
- I'm absolutely sure he's the only person in politics to ever do that. Which, by the way, is also what I'm accusing the left of doing when they brand him as the second coming of Hitler.

"He wants to control the media and what they can and cannot say."
- Kind of like Pres. Obama was with Fox News, just that he was less boorish about it.

"He wants big military, big government on the policing side of things."
- Given that our military has been significantly depleted, I'm with him on building back up. The primary goal of a country is the defense of its people, so if there's anywhere I want to make sure we're up to snuff, it's the military.

"He clearly doesn't give a shit about education. It's easier to control stupid people."
- What are you deriving this from?

"He hasn't cut ties with his business, he could be profiting from decisions right now and you wouldn't know it."
- My understanding is that he has turned it over to his sons. I'm watching in that regard.

I could go on, but I'm sure you know what else I might bring up. How do you continue to defend this man? It seems like you take offense to me posting that image, I really want to know why.

My point was less to defend Trump, and more to defend CRTGAMER. I don't agree with everything he posts, either, but that post felt similarly reactionary to me.

[CRTGAMER]

Ah, two dialogs going on at once!

1. Smart locking up the lower court like that exposing the huge sweep of liberal judges not following law plainly in the print. I smell Steve Bannon tactics all over this and possibly all the way back to the initial Immigrant Ban to break up the 9th district as well as cut down red state democrats in 2018. A bait to pull a liberal Seattle judge like that, a California judge was expected to bite. A reason there were a weak defense from lawyers representing not state but Federal level.

2. Hannity stated it right last night, Congress needs to act immediately and either back this order or rescind it. O'Reilly stated it right as well; "A one party system is not healthy for the country." Too bad the Schumer and Pelosi gang are not listening and will be wiped out in 2018.

Call me crazy, but...I don't really trust someone who treats statements by Fox News commentators as gospel to let me know when there is too much spin. Also, your legal analysis is, for lack of a more polite term, flawed.

Your post-facto characterization of every action taken by the Trump administration as a master stroke by a team of genius puppet masters (rather than an out take from a public policy blooper reel) is really, really funny, however.

I included my edited update to my previous reply above in case you missed it. Yes it is deep and a long reach, someone else on here called me insane on my earlier less revealing tease on this. Right now the existing Ban is focused by the 9th Circuit judges as a new Ban is being written.

I do not take any word as gospel, but do latch onto ideas that make sense to me. I have stated before that Congress needs to take action either for or against the Immigration Ban to resolve it. I was surprised to watch Hannity last night in his commentary challenging the Republicans in Congress (note not Democrats) to take charge and back up the President Immigration Ban. As mentioned before, the Congress and President should run the country. A circuit judge should not have to take charge deciding policy due to the slow action of Congress.

1. Should Congress be immediate involved and vote to either to back or rescind the 90 day Immigration Ban?

2. I don't think this has to be asked, but do you agree a one party system is not healthy for this country?

The Democratic party needs to challenge policies they do not support. As your favorite guy in my linked video mentioned, you need to choose your battles wisely. As I stated controlled vs extreme emotions will always prevail in making a mark. Senator Schumer and Representative Pelosi need to reign in their hate and start big picture strategy to not lose more seats in 2018. So far I see no effort in this.

[Sarge]

- If the nationalism crosses an unacceptable line, I will have issues. However, a deep love of country does not inherently mean that one is going to cross into fascism.
- What human rights has he violated right now?
- Every politician pretty much ever identifies enemies to unify their base. This happens every single time we have an election, on both sides.
- Restoration of the military is not supremacy of the military.
- Sexism, yeah, probably. There's one. Is this supposed to refer to a leader's personal life, or rampant sexism in all parts of government?
- I don't see him controlling the mass media. He's trying to shape the message, but I don't see him going all Pravda.
- Is obsession the right term? National security is an issue, and is increasingly so in the era of cyber-terrorism and asymmetrical warfare.
- We haven't really seen enough to know what he's going to do on the corporate side. There is an assumption that because his advisors are moneyed people, he will always side with them.
- How is he suppressing labor? Is it because he appointed an opponent of minimum wage?
- I've got to be honest, as a member of the "intellectual" class, I've got a disdain for a lot of them, too. I read this more as a disdain for the establishment, the folks that on both sides have managed to screw things up time and again. I don't know of any specific attack on the arts. If we talk about science, I can understand some of the global warming skepticism as well. There's a lot of conflicting data out there, over a very short time period. There's a long, long discussion here, but... not sure I want to delve into it right now.
- Given the rather lax enforcement of various aspects of the law in the previous administration, a focus on restoring the rule of law should be unsurprising.
- Too soon to tell here. I'll be watching closely.
- The election wasn't fraudulent, although I'm sure there were instances of fraud committed. Russia didn't hack our voting machines. And it's also not the first time they've attempted to meddle in our elections, either.
- Whoops, missed the religious one. Sorta ironic, I guess. I don't think Trump is a particularly religious man, as he shows very little grasp of Scripture, nor does his personal behavior reflect Christ in his life. I can't make any judgments as regarding his salvation, and he could very well be a "new" Christian. I think most of his religious plays are to appeal to his voters. I called him a charlatan several times before the election, especially with religious matters. I must admit, I was wrong on quite a bit, as he's certainly moved to implement much of what he said on the campaign trail.

So I'd say... one solid yes, and a lot of "I'm watching". Various smaller levels of concern that might change if he perpetrates worse, but I can't predict the future.

I know we don't see eye to eye politically, but I hope you can see where I just can't get quite as freaked out. I did that with Pres. Obama, and there were things he did, and policies he implemented, that scared the mess out of me, too, so perhaps I should examine myself and realize that the same fears I had are being played out in reverse, with the only real differences being that we each think we're actually right.

I appreciate your candor, jp1. And I've said it before, I don't feel Trump was anything close to an optimum choice. I don't think the sort of person either of us would have wanted was ever in contention in this election, sadly.

[jp1]

- If the nationalism crosses an unacceptable line, I will have issues. However, a deep love of country does not inherently mean that one is going to cross into fascism.
- What human rights has he violated right now?
- Every politician pretty much ever identifies enemies to unify their base. This happens every single time we have an election, on both sides.
- Restoration of the military is not supremacy of the military.
- Sexism, yeah, probably. There's one. Is this supposed to refer to a leader's personal life, or rampant sexism in all parts of government?
- I don't see him controlling the mass media. He's trying to shape the message, but I don't see him going all Pravda.
- Is obsession the right term? National security is an issue, and is increasingly so in the era of cyber-terrorism and asymmetrical warfare.
- We haven't really seen enough to know what he's going to do on the corporate side. There is an assumption that because his advisors are moneyed people, he will always side with them.
- How is he suppressing labor? Is it because he appointed an opponent of minimum wage?
- I've got to be honest, as a member of the "intellectual" class, I've got a disdain for a lot of them, too. I read this more as a disdain for the establishment, the folks that on both sides have managed to screw things up time and again. I don't know of any specific attack on the arts. If we talk about science, I can understand some of the global warming skepticism as well. There's a lot of conflicting data out there, over a very short time period. There's a long, long discussion here, but... not sure I want to delve into it right now.
- Given the rather lax enforcement of various aspects of the law in the previous administration, a focus on restoring the rule of law should be unsurprising.
- Too soon to tell here. I'll be watching closely.
- The election wasn't fraudulent, although I'm sure there were instances of fraud committed. Russia didn't hack our voting machines. And it's also not the first time they've attempted to meddle in our elections, either.

So I'd say... one solid yes, and a lot of "I'm watching". Various smaller levels of concern that might change if he perpetrates worse, but I can't predict the future.

I know we don't see eye to eye politically, but I hope you can see where I just can't get quite as freaked out. I did that with Pres. Obama, and there were things he did, and policies he implemented, that scared the mess out of me, too, so perhaps I should examine myself and realize that the same fears I had are being played out in reverse, with the only real differences being that we each think we're actually right.

I appreciate your candor, jp1. And I've said it before, I don't feel Trump was anything close to an optimum choice. I don't think the sort of person either of us would have wanted was ever in contention in this election, sadly.

Busy with family night. I'll get a response on both posts as soon as possible. Thank you for taking the time to reply honestly.

Sent from my LG-D851 using Tapatalk