Quizzes & Puzzles9 mins ago
U.s .supreme Court Backs Trump's Muslim Travel Ban.
76 Answers
Vote was 5-2 in DT's favour. What do you reckon to that then?
https:/
https:/
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ladybirder. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I addressed the OP in a few posts. I also addressed a tangential, but related, discussion. I'm not sure there's much harm in that.
I can't remember who it was who said it but someone suggested once that Trump should at least be given the credit that he's trying to do what he thinks is best for the country. My argument is to say only that, perhaps, he ought to tackle another issue alongside the one he focused on with this Travel Ban.
And, if I may say so, it's hard to imagine any other president being more successful at dealing with the gun violence issues than Trump could be, if he wanted to. Not that I expect him to -- but I can hope.
I can't remember who it was who said it but someone suggested once that Trump should at least be given the credit that he's trying to do what he thinks is best for the country. My argument is to say only that, perhaps, he ought to tackle another issue alongside the one he focused on with this Travel Ban.
And, if I may say so, it's hard to imagine any other president being more successful at dealing with the gun violence issues than Trump could be, if he wanted to. Not that I expect him to -- but I can hope.
//This version isn't really a "Muslim travel ban" any more//
And if it were a "Muslim" travel ban it would not[i be unconstitutional. (Has anybody read the original PO and its citations?)
Home-grown problems may be a greater [i]present] danger to Americans than imported Muslim idealogues.
A pity that SP and Jim between them haven't thought about the ideological basis of jihad (they're very hot on "white supremacy" and Duke and the KKK, aren't they?) and made reasonable extrapolations about the increased risk caused by ongoing Muslim immigration. (Bernardino, anybody?)
Worse still, both deny such analysis as bigotry rather than prudence.
And if it were a "Muslim" travel ban it would not[i be unconstitutional. (Has anybody read the original PO and its citations?)
Home-grown problems may be a greater [i]present] danger to Americans than imported Muslim idealogues.
A pity that SP and Jim between them haven't thought about the ideological basis of jihad (they're very hot on "white supremacy" and Duke and the KKK, aren't they?) and made reasonable extrapolations about the increased risk caused by ongoing Muslim immigration. (Bernardino, anybody?)
Worse still, both deny such analysis as bigotry rather than prudence.
//And if it were a "Muslim" travel ban it would not[i be unconstitutional. //
I think this has come up on AB before but can't remember the thread. Anyway -- yes, this is true from what I recall. The issues at stake (as I noted in the last page) were primarily about the rights of States. Not read the latest SC judgement but I suspect that the same position holds.
I think this has come up on AB before but can't remember the thread. Anyway -- yes, this is true from what I recall. The issues at stake (as I noted in the last page) were primarily about the rights of States. Not read the latest SC judgement but I suspect that the same position holds.
An analysis of the local problem (gun crime) might start with simple observations like most Americans who are murdered are black and their killers are mostly black Americans.
Further, you might consider that the biggest killing fields are American cities which have been run by Democrats for decades. And that the typical mayor and police chief is, guess what, not white but black?
I don't draw any racial inferences from this data. Nonetheless I think they require explanation.
(What does Keele University's American Studies department have to say about this, Jim?)
Further, you might consider that the biggest killing fields are American cities which have been run by Democrats for decades. And that the typical mayor and police chief is, guess what, not white but black?
I don't draw any racial inferences from this data. Nonetheless I think they require explanation.
(What does Keele University's American Studies department have to say about this, Jim?)
Citation needed?
You're frequently wrong, but never in my experience dishonest, Jim. Unlike some AB obscurantists.
You don't challenge my reference to Democrat run cities like Chicago, Detroit, Charlottesville etc do you? Or attribute all the black deaths in these cities to incursions by white supremacists?
You're frequently wrong, but never in my experience dishonest, Jim. Unlike some AB obscurantists.
You don't challenge my reference to Democrat run cities like Chicago, Detroit, Charlottesville etc do you? Or attribute all the black deaths in these cities to incursions by white supremacists?
v_e
Gun crime in America affects all Americans, but black, poor and Latino Americans in greater numbers. Therefore it's a problem that needs to be tackled.
I admire the fact that you make no racial inferences, because it goes beyond race (for instance, mass shootings are normally carried out by whites, whereas 'individual' shootings are not).
The inference that I see is that guns are readily available, and are used in the commission of crime. Crime in America is aided by guns, and crime in urban areas is higher proportionally than in the suburbs.
But overall, Americans are more likely to be accidentally shot by children than by Jihadists.
Gun crime in America affects all Americans, but black, poor and Latino Americans in greater numbers. Therefore it's a problem that needs to be tackled.
I admire the fact that you make no racial inferences, because it goes beyond race (for instance, mass shootings are normally carried out by whites, whereas 'individual' shootings are not).
The inference that I see is that guns are readily available, and are used in the commission of crime. Crime in America is aided by guns, and crime in urban areas is higher proportionally than in the suburbs.
But overall, Americans are more likely to be accidentally shot by children than by Jihadists.
While Trump is no doubt chuckling in the White House, now that he is going to be able to ban Muslims from America, the real problem still remains.
Millions of his own, citizens posses millions of guns, that they don't need, and have no use for, like assault weapons. These are the people that are the real threat to life and limb Stateside, but because he is financially supported by these people, he can't and won't do anything about this much more real threat.
Millions of his own, citizens posses millions of guns, that they don't need, and have no use for, like assault weapons. These are the people that are the real threat to life and limb Stateside, but because he is financially supported by these people, he can't and won't do anything about this much more real threat.
Emmie....its because Americans in general, and Trump in particular feel that every Muslim is making a bee-line for the States, in order to create havoc.
Some Muslims may, of course, but he is just going to ban everybody Muslim, just in case.
While the real danger comes not from Aliens, but from within.
Some Muslims may, of course, but he is just going to ban everybody Muslim, just in case.
While the real danger comes not from Aliens, but from within.
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles13 mins ago
Crosswords17 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles48 mins ago
Film, Media & TV60 mins ago
Trump/Ukraine, What Will He Do?
News70 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.