Fuhrer Trump: No muslim welcome for 4 months

[Scuba Pete]

but I am saying the Obama administration did not discriminate against Christian refugees.

Good to hear. Your previous post lead me to believe otherwise.

 

[Scuba Pete]

So your saying, now that Trump has been elected to power, we should expect him to start rounding up Muslims in cattle cars, torturing and executing them, within the next 9 years.

He probably only has four years left in this position. But his bigotry and his early actions are pretty similar to Hitler's. Eerily so.

 

[Mister Emu]

You should understand more about the legal theories involved here. You need intent/purpose as well.

The whole point of disparate impact is that you don't need intent. So, no, I don't. You do. Discrimination lawsuits have been decided against the defendant even without intent in America, as I said.

The whole legal thing is without connection to my posts anyways, I never suggested that there was a liability; the refugees (whether Muslim, Christian, Yazidi or Atheist) have no standing. It is a moral issue, and to me I find it morally repugnant that such a disparity existed and was not addressed or even investigated.

Are you confident that you would not be morally outraged if it were the obverse and we had 12 thousand Christians and Yazidis coming and only 68 Muslims?

The question you are asking is why didn't the u.s. pay special favor to Christian refugees.

No, the question, again, is why didn't the administration address the systemic issue causing a disproportionate decrease in Christian refugees from Syria. The answer in my opinion is that they didn't care.

 

[Curious George]

I never made any arguments. I just said disparate impact is a valid legal theory, which it is.

To which I told the poster who brought it up that the should understand the legal theory better. I do not believe I made a comment that disparate impact is not a valid legal theory.

 

[Curious George]

The whole point of disparate impact is that you don't need intent. So, no, I don't. You do. Discrimination lawsuits have been decided against the defendant even without intent in America, as I said.

The whole legal thing is without connection to my posts anyways, I never suggested that there was a liability; the refugees (whether Muslim, Christian, Yazidi or Atheist) have no standing. It is a moral issue, and to me I find it morally repugnant that such a disparity existed and was not addressed or even investigated.

Are you confident that you would not be morally outraged if it were the obverse and we had 12 thousand Christians and Yazidis coming and only 68 Muslims?

I don't believe I was declaring favoritism or religious discrimination for the disparity found in Iraqi refugeesdespite disparity in favor of Christians.

No, the question, again, is why didn't the administration address the systemic issue causing a disproportionate decrease in Christian refugees from Syria. The answer in my opinion is that they didn't care.

And with this question, not the answer, I agree. We should certainly question disparity when it arises. But here is the issue, you say that Trump is righting a wrong. This implies that Obama administration was wrong in their procedure and or policy. There is no reasoning behind this except that it led to disparity. Not all disparities are equal (a quasi-joke for you). If you want to suggest that the Obama administration should have done something different, we are going to have to get into specifics. What other options were available, was the option that they chose reasonable, are there reasons they might have disfavored alternative options.

Conversely, we have trump, who has been vocal enough about his policy to reasonably assume that it is about religion and the discrimination and favoritism.

 

[columbus]

Let's wait until he personally arranges for the categorical annihilation of Muslims in the US, before we start making that comparison.

"Wait and see" does appear to be the new "Never again". But I am surprised to hear a Jew say it so clearly.
Tom

 

[Mister Emu]

Citation needed. Please show this in writing.

Well, I didn't say that so... no. I've said what rustles my jimmies is the apparent lack of concern for how the policy wasn't reaching Syrian Christians. Not that Obama was villainously twirling a mustache and laughing evilly while he said "No Christians". We've let in a lot of Christian refugees from other countries, but in Syria the administration failed those people.

If only a certain percent of Christians applied for asylum then only a certain percentage can be accepted.

As you said, "Citation needed", show me that Christians don't want to come and I'll retract my position; I think that is a fairy tale. In the meanwhile, I'll live in the real world, where these people ran from being burned alive by monsters and we only let 68 of them in.

It would appear that this is just an emotional feeling/fact. Nothing real to it at all.

The numbers are real, and you can dance around them all you want. It doesn't matter anymore, we're going to make sure these people aren't abandoned by the American process and I think they're going to come in.

 

[Curious George]

Good to hear. Your previous post lead me to believe otherwise.

My previous post stated that Obama administration had policies which showed discriminatory effects against Christian Syrian refugees. The argument at hand is whether such amounts to discrimination. I say no, not without more. Others say yes in and of itself disparate impact = discrimination. It seemed as though you were suggesting that the administration was not aware of the disparity, or that the policy and procedures did not lead to the disparity. The latter is arguable, the former is not. So the question then becomes, why didn't the administration address the disparity. I think this is a fair question, but not one we can answer without more specifics.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Prep the orchestra, pop the champagne: Servant and I agree on something. Particularly the last sentence (with the exception of Iran & Iraq which are Gulf states as far as I'm aware).

Same here. Exactly.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

It is not a ban on Muslims, it is a ban on people from countries where terrorist are more likely to come from. What is wrong with taking time to be sure those who are allowed in are not terrorists.

Like Saudi Arabia, you mean?

 

[psychoslice]

Thanks CG




If I have hurt you in some way I cannot fathom, I apologize. I genuinely don't hate anyone in this world and frankly I pity people with bigoted, shortsighted, biased beliefs.
However I ask you to take responsibility for your own actions, because neither me nor my attitude will take that blame. Continuing to call me unintelligent and make other personal attacks will be reported in violation of forum rules.

I think we both have said enough.

 

[Scuba Pete]

My previous post stated that Obama administration had policies which showed discriminatory effects against Christian Syrian refugees.

OK, so trot out those policies. You're ascribing causality to a mere coincidence here. Which policy is egregious enough to do this? Look at Trump's crystal clear call to bigotry against Muslims. There's no doubt as to where the bigotry here is coming from. He signed the EO to enforce that bigotry which was struck down by a judge. Ergo we have a signed confession of him being a bigot. Show me a smoking gun here for Obama, not just idle speculation.

 

[Curious George]

OK, so trot out those policies. You're ascribing causality to a mere coincidence here. Which policy is egregious enough to do this? Look at Trump's crystal clear call to bigotry against Muslims. There's no doubt as to where the bigotry here is coming from. He signed the EO to enforce that bigotry which was struck down by a judge. Ergo we have a signed confession of him being a bigot. Show me a smoking gun here for Obama, not just idle speculation.

Your still not understanding. Just because there was a disparate impact on xtians does not mean that Obama was discriminating. I agree with you on this. I do not agree with you that the policies did not lead to disparate impact. The policies led to the results, the results are what they are.

 

[Tumah]

"Wait and see" does appear to be the new "Never again". But I am surprised to hear a Jew say it so clearly.
Tom

You shouldn't be surprised. "Never Again" never really caught on in the ultra-Orthodox world.

But then again, I am not arguing that one shouldn't be wary of Trump or that he is a good person. I am only arguing that comparing Trump to Hitler at this point in time is a false equivalency.

 

[Tumah]

He probably only has four years left in this position. But his bigotry and his early actions are pretty similar to Hitler's. Eerily so.

FDR refused entry to the US for refugees and placed Japanese in internment camps during WW II. I can see much greater similarity to FDR who passively allowed refugees to die and actively removed a segment of the population from the nation, than to Hitler who actively tortured and killed millions.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

A fundamentally biased and deplorable act which will hopefully prompt the moderate Muslim majority in this and other countries to collectively differentiate themselves from and condemn Islamic extremism and terrorism, and protest for their rights as responsible immigrants who respect the other religions and laws of countries where they hope to relocate to. I would be outraged at this action as a moderate Muslim, and outraged at the violent extremists who contributed to this view of Islam, and would feel compelled to correct the view of Muslims that was created by a minority which had shaped this view, particularly since they don't represent Islam.

 

[Yerda]

It seem to be pure irrational prejudice against Muslims.

It might be prejudice it's not irrational. Trump promised the anti-Muslim voters action. He has to keep some promises if he's to keep them sweet. Compared to banning all Muslims and creating registers this is pretty moderate.

Likewise with the wall. If he isn't to seem to be another elitist, faceless politician in tight with the establishment he has to do something. He'll build something half-arsed but enough to save some face.

 

[Scuba Pete]

I do not agree with you that the policies did not lead to disparate impact.

I do 'get' what you're saying, but you still haven't answered the question. Let's break it down into two parts for you and @Mister Emu so you can better process it.

1. WHAT POLICY??? Please cite the specific EO or other directive responsible for this travesty. We can easily point to the bigoted EO signed by Komrade Trumpsky, but I have yet to see either of you present anything similar from Obama. Don't be vague: be specific.
2. Show the causality. What about this EO is causing the disparity? How is it doing this? Cum Hoc Ergo Proctor Hoc applies here. Just because a problem exists doesn't mean that the policies are creating that problem.

 

[Scuba Pete]

I can see much greater similarity to FDR who passively allowed refugees to die and actively removed a segment of the population from the nation, than to Hitler who actively tortured and killed millions.

How? The deplorable detentions of Japanese, Germans and Italians during WW II was a result of EO 9066, but it wasn't specifically mentioned in it. Do yourself a favor and read it. It reads fine, but it gave too much power to bigots. BTW, I don't think we have FDR on record advocating waterboarding.

Komrade Trumpsky shares more similarities with Hitler than any other American President. Here's a good read: Opinion: Just how similar is Donald Trump to Adolf Hitler? It would be easy to pass this off as a Godwin's Law Violation (too many Hitlers on the Field), but the comparison unfortunately holds mainly due to the systematic racism the man is asking for.

 

[Kirran]

You shouldn't be surprised. "Never Again" never really caught on in the ultra-Orthodox world.

What did catch on?