Political Roundtable Part XIII

[Induveca]

That might be the case if both the President AND his spokeman didn't call it a ban. They DID. The fact that they blamed the press later for them calling it a ban led to a pretty funny skit on SNL you might want to check out.

This was Trump's campaign promise. He EVEN said he was giving preference to Christians. To say it wasn't a ban is in fact the falsehood, as the 9th circuit court decision proved.

That's completely contradictory and dishonest for someone with your background. On one hand you admit it's just 7 countries, and it *is* 7 countries. It was a 90 day "ban" on 7 countries not a "Muslim ban".

Again, this is what started it all. DHS tightened the screws on those 7 nations substantially in February of 2016. It voided visas until they were re-interviewed and obtained a secure passport from their country with verifiable biographical information.

http://www.dewittross.com/news-education/posts/2016/02/19/changes-to-visa-waiver-program-for-esta-travelers

You claim you pride yourself on "bringing people together", but pushing a false narrative you've acknowledged as false does the exact opposite.

Yeah, not really following your reasoning. Of course the EO had 7 countries - you're acting like this is some Perry Mason moment - that's completely silly. How does this contradict their own words? We are banning Muslims from these countries, but if you're Christian, come on in!

We have news out today that in fact the Trump administration DID request intelligence to fit the 7 countries, and there is pushback that in fact if you were going to choose 7 countries, this is a really poor list. Bottom line, the policy wasn't based on reality. It was based on ideology and fulfilling Trump's campaign promise of a Muslim ban AS HE AND HIS STAFF STATED.

President Donald Trump has assigned the Department of Homeland Security, working with the Justice Department, to help build the legal case for its temporary travel ban on individuals from seven countries, a senior White House official tells CNN.

Other Trump administration sources tell CNN that this is an assignment that has caused concern among some administration intelligence officials, who see the White House charge as the politicization of intelligence -- the notion of a conclusion in search of evidence to support it after being blocked by the courts. Still others in the intelligence community disagree with the conclusion and are finding their work disparaged by their own department.

"DHS and DOJ are working on an intelligence report that will demonstrate that the security threat for these seven countries is substantial and that these seven countries have all been exporters of terrorism into the United States," the senior White House official told CNN. "The situation has gotten more dangerous in recent years, and more broadly, the refugee program has been a major incubator for terrorism."

This is classic "putting the cart before the horse" stuff. Call it Iraq 2.0. "Here's our policy, now we need intelligence assessments to back this up!"

I kinda mentioned this yesterday. Let the intelligence community conduct an overall assessment and analysis of alternatives for the best options, and present those to the President. This is how a normal White House works.

Get ready for leaks galore if this BS continues.

What? You're delusional.

[Wizardspride]

Read on Twitter

[sfam]

Then let me be more direct. Why would separating Kurds a hundred years ago lead to generations of conflict?

If I randomly divided up Spain, France and Germany into different borders, where language and culture groups are mixed and previous capitals now exist in other countries, would you expect there would be conflict as a result?

This in essence what happened.

The difference in a nutshell is this. The US made a conscious decision to become a nation of immigrants, to embrace diversity. These people were carved up by an outside force, which led to situations where majority populations were living in tyranny from minority leaders, horrific series of conflicts, and a continual history of outside meddling. The fact that their religion is Muslim is a side note to this.

So in other words different cultures clashed. If the Kurds has their own state, the Sunnis had their own state and the **** had their own state then everything would be fine. But when you throw them all together it creates conflict.

That is my point. Having different cultures together is frequently a recipe for violence, especially when the cultures are incompatible.

You've completely bypassed any context for a simplistic answer. The same thing would have happened with Christians. When you randomly divide societies and destabilize power structures, you're creating a recipe for instability. This is an overt creation of conflict. This has nothing to do with multiculturalism. Nor does this deal with the reality of destabilizing force from oil and those in power who own it do with the proceeds.

EDIT: And again, Muslims have been in the US since its founding. I'm just not that afraid of Kareem Abdul Jabbar having an incompatible culture than me, even though is religion is different.

[sfam]

That's completely contradictory and dishonest for someone with your background. On one hand you admit it's just 7 countries, and it *is* 7 countries. It was a 90 day "ban" on 7 countries not a "Muslim ban".

Again, this is what started it all. DHS tightened the screws on those 7 nations substantially in February of 2016. It voided visas until they were re-interviewed and obtained a secure passport from their country with verifiable biographical information.

http://www.dewittross.com/news-education/posts/2016/02/19/changes-to-visa-waiver-program-for-esta-travelers

You claim you pride yourself on "bringing people together", but pushing a false narrative you've acknowledged as false does the exact opposite.

Yeah, not really following your reasoning. Of course the EO had 7 countries - you're acting like this is some Perry Mason moment - that's completely silly. How does this contradict their own words? We are banning Muslims from these countries, but if you're Christian, come on in!

We have news out today that in fact the Trump administration DID request intelligence to fit the 7 countries, and there is pushback that in fact if you were going to choose 7 countries, this is a really poor list. Bottom line, the policy wasn't based on reality. It was based on ideology and fulfilling Trump's campaign promise of a Muslim ban AS HE AND HIS STAFF STATED.

President Donald Trump has assigned the Department of Homeland Security, working with the Justice Department, to help build the legal case for its temporary travel ban on individuals from seven countries, a senior White House official tells CNN.

Other Trump administration sources tell CNN that this is an assignment that has caused concern among some administration intelligence officials, who see the White House charge as the politicization of intelligence -- the notion of a conclusion in search of evidence to support it after being blocked by the courts. Still others in the intelligence community disagree with the conclusion and are finding their work disparaged by their own department.

"DHS and DOJ are working on an intelligence report that will demonstrate that the security threat for these seven countries is substantial and that these seven countries have all been exporters of terrorism into the United States," the senior White House official told CNN. "The situation has gotten more dangerous in recent years, and more broadly, the refugee program has been a major incubator for terrorism."

This is classic "putting the cart before the horse" stuff. Call it Iraq 2.0. "Here's our policy, now we need intelligence assessments to back this up!"

I kinda mentioned this yesterday. Let the intelligence community conduct an overall assessment and analysis of alternatives for the best options, and present those to the President. This is how a normal White House works.

Get ready for leaks galore if this BS continues.

What? You're delusional.

Whatever dude.

[gtn130]

Then let me be more direct. Why would separating Kurds a hundred years ago lead to generations of conflict?

If I randomly divided up Spain, France and Germany into different borders, where language and culture groups are mixed and previous capitals now exist in other countries, would you expect there would be conflict as a result?

This in essence what happened.

The difference in a nutshell is this. The US made a conscious decision to become a nation of immigrants, to embrace diversity. These people were carved up by an outside force, which led to situations where majority populations were living in tyranny from minority leaders, horrific series of conflicts, and a continual history of outside meddling. The fact that their religion is Muslim is a side note to this.

So in other words different cultures clashed. If the Kurds has their own state, the Sunnis had their own state and the **** had their own state then everything would be fine. But when you throw them all together it creates conflict.

That is my point. Having different cultures together is frequently a recipe for violence, especially when the cultures are incompatible.

Have you heard of the United States?

[sfam]

If I randomly divided up Spain, France and Germany into different borders, where language and culture groups are mixed and previous capitals now exist in other countries, would you expect there would be conflict as a result?

This in essence what happened.

The difference in a nutshell is this. The US made a conscious decision to become a nation of immigrants, to embrace diversity. These people were carved up by an outside force, which led to situations where majority populations were living in tyranny from minority leaders, horrific series of conflicts, and a continual history of outside meddling. The fact that their religion is Muslim is a side note to this.

So in other words different cultures clashed. If the Kurds has their own state, the Sunnis had their own state and the **** had their own state then everything would be fine. But when you throw them all together it creates conflict.

That is my point. Having different cultures together is frequently a recipe for violence, especially when the cultures are incompatible.

Have you heard of the United States?

You're not talking about that dystopic hellhole between Mexico and Canada are you?

[tontoz]

If I randomly divided up Spain, France and Germany into different borders, where language and culture groups are mixed and previous capitals now exist in other countries, would you expect there would be conflict as a result?

This in essence what happened.

The difference in a nutshell is this. The US made a conscious decision to become a nation of immigrants, to embrace diversity. These people were carved up by an outside force, which led to situations where majority populations were living in tyranny from minority leaders, horrific series of conflicts, and a continual history of outside meddling. The fact that their religion is Muslim is a side note to this.

So in other words different cultures clashed. If the Kurds has their own state, the Sunnis had their own state and the **** had their own state then everything would be fine. But when you throw them all together it creates conflict.

That is my point. Having different cultures together is frequently a recipe for violence, especially when the cultures are incompatible.

Have you heard of the United States?

I think so. If I remember correctly there were Native Indians here when us immigrants arrived. They were promptly slaughtered/displaced.

We brought over black slaves from Africa that we treated like dogs, giving them no rights and routinely killing/abusing them for generations.

I seem to recall them making a movie called "Gangs of NY" that wasn't exactly a picture of ethnic harmony in the early days of the US.

Is that the country you are talking about? Is the US the country you really want to use as an example of multicultural harmony?

[gtn130]

So in other words different cultures clashed. If the Kurds has their own state, the Sunnis had their own state and the **** had their own state then everything would be fine. But when you throw them all together it creates conflict.

That is my point. Having different cultures together is frequently a recipe for violence, especially when the cultures are incompatible.

Have you heard of the United States?

I think so. If I remember correctly there were Native Indians here when us immigrants arrived. They were promptly slaughtered/displaced.

We brought over black slaves from Africa that we treated like dogs, giving them no rights and routinely killing/abusing them for generations.

I seem to recall them making a movie called "Gangs of NY" that wasn't exactly a picture of ethnic harmony in the early days of the US.

Is that the country you are talking about? Is the US the country you really want to use as an example of multicultural harmony?

Dude. There is zero nuance to your takes. Read a book, man. Like I really don't want to bother responding to these reductive, asinine posts.

Slavery and genocide existed, so surely multiculturalism is impossible!!! Ok bro. Humans haven't made any progress in hundreds of years. We're all exactly who our ancestors were. Nothing has changed. Good stuff.

[DCZards]

I think so. If I remember correctly there were Native Indians here when us immigrants arrived. They were promptly slaughtered/displaced.

We brought over black slaves from Africa that we treated like dogs, giving them no rights and routinely killing/abusing them for generations.

I seem to recall them making a movie called "Gangs of NY" that wasn't exactly a picture of ethnic harmony in the early days of the US.

Is that the country you are talking about? Is the US the country you really want to use as an example of multicultural harmony?

The US is no multicultural utopia but it is an example of how people from a cross-section of religions, cultures and ethnic backgrounds can live together...and thrive.

I'm African American and I live in an area of DC where I'm surrounded by and regularly engage with Hispanics, whites, West Africans, Ethiopians, people from the Caribbean and Europe. It's a real diverse and enriching mix...and I love it!

[tontoz]

Have you heard of the United States?

I think so. If I remember correctly there were Native Indians here when us immigrants arrived. They were promptly slaughtered/displaced.

We brought over black slaves from Africa that we treated like dogs, giving them no rights and routinely killing/abusing them for generations.

I seem to recall them making a movie called "Gangs of NY" that wasn't exactly a picture of ethnic harmony in the early days of the US.

Is that the country you are talking about? Is the US the country you really want to use as an example of multicultural harmony?

Dude. There is zero nuance to your takes. Read a book, man. Like I really don't want to bother responding to these reductive, asinine posts.

Slavery and genocide existed, so surely multiculturalism is impossible!!! Ok bro. Humans haven't made any progress in hundreds of years. We're all exactly who our ancestors were. Nothing has changed. Good stuff.

Is that a yes or a no? To this day multiculturalism in the US is very different in theory than in practice. Surely you can see that.

There are plenty of other countries where multiculturalism fared quite a bit worse. Remember Yugoslavia? That wasn't very long ago.

If different Muslim factions can't get along with each other after all this time I fail to see how they are going to come over here and assimilate peacefully into a far different culture.

[tontoz]

I think so. If I remember correctly there were Native Indians here when us immigrants arrived. They were promptly slaughtered/displaced.

We brought over black slaves from Africa that we treated like dogs, giving them no rights and routinely killing/abusing them for generations.

I seem to recall them making a movie called "Gangs of NY" that wasn't exactly a picture of ethnic harmony in the early days of the US.

Is that the country you are talking about? Is the US the country you really want to use as an example of multicultural harmony?

The US is no multicultural utopia but it is an example of how people from a cross-section of religions, cultures and ethnic backgrounds can live together...and thrive.

I'm African American and I live in an area of DC where I'm surrounded by and regularly engage with Hispanics, whites, West Africans, Ethiopians, people from the Caribbean and Europe. It's a real diverse and enriching mix...and I love it!

While the US surely can be considered a success story, what I see frequently are majority white neighborhoods, majority black neighborhoods, majority Hispanic neighborhoods, and very few evenly split neighborhoods.

I lived in Atlanta for 12 years starting back in the 90s. When I first got there it quickly became apparent where the blacks lived and where the whites lived. The first apartment complex I looked at was on the east side and I didn't see a white soul anywhere. I was used to that on a basketball court but I felt a bit strange and got some looks like "what is this guy doing here" lol.

[gtn130]

Read on Twitter

Freedom! Democracy!

[Wizardspride]

Read on Twitter

[sfam]

So in other words different cultures clashed. If the Kurds has their own state, the Sunnis had their own state and the **** had their own state then everything would be fine. But when you throw them all together it creates conflict.

That is my point. Having different cultures together is frequently a recipe for violence, especially when the cultures are incompatible.

Have you heard of the United States?

I think so. If I remember correctly there were Native Indians here when us immigrants arrived. They were promptly slaughtered/displaced.

We brought over black slaves from Africa that we treated like dogs, giving them no rights and routinely killing/abusing them for generations.

I seem to recall them making a movie called "Gangs of NY" that wasn't exactly a picture of ethnic harmony in the early days of the US.

Is that the country you are talking about? Is the US the country you really want to use as an example of multicultural harmony?

Do you really see our country as Gangs of NY?

On that point, the vast majority of the violence in the US has nothing to do with ethnic tensions. Its far more about personal issues (crime, wife beating, gang violence, drugs, suicide, car deaths, etc.) exacerbated by gun violence.

[sfam]

I think so. If I remember correctly there were Native Indians here when us immigrants arrived. They were promptly slaughtered/displaced.

We brought over black slaves from Africa that we treated like dogs, giving them no rights and routinely killing/abusing them for generations.

I seem to recall them making a movie called "Gangs of NY" that wasn't exactly a picture of ethnic harmony in the early days of the US.

Is that the country you are talking about? Is the US the country you really want to use as an example of multicultural harmony?

Dude. There is zero nuance to your takes. Read a book, man. Like I really don't want to bother responding to these reductive, asinine posts.

Slavery and genocide existed, so surely multiculturalism is impossible!!! Ok bro. Humans haven't made any progress in hundreds of years. We're all exactly who our ancestors were. Nothing has changed. Good stuff.

Is that a yes or a no? To this day multiculturalism in the US is very different in theory than in practice. Surely you can see that.

There are plenty of other countries where multiculturalism fared quite a bit worse. Remember Yugoslavia? That wasn't very long ago.

If different Muslim factions can't get along with each other after all this time I fail to see how they are going to come over here and assimilate peacefully into a far different culture.

So if I understand your position correctly, any violence between different ethnic groups is proof that multiculturalism is flawed? Talk about a straw man. I suppose you win if you use that as your baseline.

[sfam]

I think so. If I remember correctly there were Native Indians here when us immigrants arrived. They were promptly slaughtered/displaced.

We brought over black slaves from Africa that we treated like dogs, giving them no rights and routinely killing/abusing them for generations.

I seem to recall them making a movie called "Gangs of NY" that wasn't exactly a picture of ethnic harmony in the early days of the US.

Is that the country you are talking about? Is the US the country you really want to use as an example of multicultural harmony?

The US is no multicultural utopia but it is an example of how people from a cross-section of religions, cultures and ethnic backgrounds can live together...and thrive.

I'm African American and I live in an area of DC where I'm surrounded by and regularly engage with Hispanics, whites, West Africans, Ethiopians, people from the Caribbean and Europe. It's a real diverse and enriching mix...and I love it!

While the US surely can be considered a success story, what I see frequently are majority white neighborhoods, majority black neighborhoods, majority Hispanic neighborhoods, and very few evenly split neighborhoods.

I lived in Atlanta for 12 years starting back in the 90s. When I first got there it quickly became apparent where the blacks lived and where the whites lived. The first apartment complex I looked at was on the east side and I didn't see a white soul anywhere. I was used to that on a basketball court but I felt a bit strange and got some looks like "what is this guy doing here" lol.

I think we should take your personal experience as definitive that multiculturalism is a failure, and should force neighborhoods to be broken down by race. This will be a problem for multicultural couples like myself, but such is life I suppose.

Believe it or not, there are wide swaths of the country were people are far more integrated that you describe. The fact that you choose the south, where Blacks were slaves at one point, and then wonder why there's still segregation is pretty strange. That you use this rationale for the flaws of multiculturalism is again a straw man. Nor do I understand the need for neighborhoods to be "evenly split" as proof of something yet undefined.

We clearly have ethnic tensions in the US. Nobody disputes that. There is notion of working to form a more perfect union - this is a long term effort taking place over generations that has clearly paid off in a largely stable, multicultural society that still has shared values and a shared outlook. This is different from Myanmar, for instance, that has 16 armed conflicts going on with various ethnic groups. We can view one country as successful in terms of integration and the other as unsuccessful.

[tontoz]

Have you heard of the United States?

I think so. If I remember correctly there were Native Indians here when us immigrants arrived. They were promptly slaughtered/displaced.

We brought over black slaves from Africa that we treated like dogs, giving them no rights and routinely killing/abusing them for generations.

I seem to recall them making a movie called "Gangs of NY" that wasn't exactly a picture of ethnic harmony in the early days of the US.

Is that the country you are talking about? Is the US the country you really want to use as an example of multicultural harmony?

Do you really see our country as Gangs of NY?

On that point, the vast majority of the violence in the US has nothing to do with ethnic tensions. Its far more about personal issues (crime, wife beating, gang violence, drugs, suicide, car deaths, etc.) exacerbated by gun violence.

That was our country at one time. So was slavery. So was the massacre of the Indians.

Certainly we have made a lot of progress since then but a lot of people were needlessly killed along the way. I am not seeing similar progress in Muslim countries. They have far less diversity and far more ethnic conflicts.

If they can't get along peacefully with each other I see no reason why I should expect them to assimilate peacefully here. I have no problem with more vetting in regards to Muslim immigration, although Trump's handling of the issue certainly leaves something to be desired.

He is a bit nuts himself with a laundry list of character flaws, but that doesn't mean he is wrong about everything.

[popper]

Our political differences and values (conservative vs. progressive) are on opposite ends of the spectrum. This yawning divide prevents both ideologies an opportunity to achieve their desired policy outcomes. Just curious, would my progressive friends here support splitting the country in two or more nations based on ideology (assuming it was even possible)? I would in a heart beat. I respect those on my political left but I'd like my kids to be able to pursue a future consistent with their belief system and I assume progressives would want to do the same. Otherwise gridlock prevails. Maybe the angst in CA and their desire to secede might actually be an impetus to seriously look at separation.

[dckingsfan]

Our political differences and values (conservative vs. progressive) are on opposite ends of the spectrum. This yawning divide prevents both ideologies an opportunity to achieve their desired policy outcomes. Just curious, would my progressive friends here support splitting the country in two or more nations based on ideology (assuming it was even possible)? I would in a heart beat. I respect those on my political left but I'd like my kids to be able to pursue a future consistent with their belief system and I assume progressives would want to do the same. Otherwise gridlock prevails. Maybe the angst in CA and their desire to secede might actually be an impetus to seriously look at separation.

I would think it most certainly lead to another civil war...

[TGW]

Our political differences and values (conservative vs. progressive) are on opposite ends of the spectrum. This yawning divide prevents both ideologies an opportunity to achieve their desired policy outcomes. Just curious, would my progressive friends here support splitting the country in two or more nations based on ideology (assuming it was even possible)? I would in a heart beat. I respect those on my political left but I'd like my kids to be able to pursue a future consistent with their belief system and I assume progressives would want to do the same. Otherwise gridlock prevails. Maybe the angst in CA and their desire to secede might actually be an impetus to seriously look at separation.

The problem with states seceding is that the red states that don't care about things like pollution would affect the states around them.

OTOH I would love if all the whiny conservatives all went to states like Kansas (which is failing across MANY boards) or Texas and left the rest of the country alone.