So post-modernism created Trump? Please. The right-wing voted for him (or failed to stop him)--you get to own him. That article is tangentially related to the truth at best. How about any proof for anything it says? Here is what is going on--the right-wing is desperate to justify the Faustian bargain it made in electing Trump. They are hoping that Trump will deliver things they want without wrecking the country. But they want their cake and to eat it too--if Trump is a disaster then it was the left's fault. If Trump is able to rule four years, get conservatives what they want, and there are no major problems then that's a big win for conservatives/Republicans. Congratulations if that happens. Otherwise, you all should be writing apology letters for not getting Hillary elected, who would have basically continued things the way they were going, which by all objective measurements wasn't bad. But blaming Trump on liberals or the left-wing--that's pathetic

I also thought this was a god read. Pretty balanced too, it never really seemed to glorify Trump, it kept calling him the "anti-Hero" comparing him to Scarface and the like. It does explain how Trump is getting away with acting like a crazy person. well done!

rickyp wrote:fate

Sorry, but there is nothing "objective" about this analysis.

Thank you for your alternative fact.

What is "alternative" is claiming as "objective" something that is clearly subjective. That means it's opinion, just fyi. You have a very jello-like grasp on the objective vs. subjective difference.

freeman3 wrote:So post-modernism created Trump? Please. The right-wing voted for him (or failed to stop him)--you get to own him. That article is tangentially related to the truth at best. How about any proof for anything it says? Here is what is going on--the right-wing is desperate to justify the Faustian bargain it made in electing Trump. They are hoping that Trump will deliver things they want without wrecking the country. But they want their cake and to eat it too--if Trump is a disaster then it was the left's fault. If Trump is able to rule four years, get conservatives what they want, and there are no major problems then that's a big win for conservatives/Republicans. Congratulations if that happens. Otherwise, you all should be writing apology letters for not getting Hillary elected, who would have basically continued things the way they were going, which by all objective measurements wasn't bad. But blaming Trump on liberals or the left-wing--that's pathetic

Sorry, Freeman, but you missed the heart of the article. Please permit me:

. . . both PC and Trump’s response to it are fruits of the postmodernism that has long ascended to the heights of our culture: the nihilism in the common presumption that all truth is relative, morality is subjective, and therefore all of our individually preferred “narratives” that give our lives meaning are equally true and worthy of validation.

In other words, postmodernism, the system that treats all truth as relative (no objective truth), produced both political-correctness AND its opposite, Trump. It's not blaming liberals. Postmodernism may be more prevalent on the Left than the Right, but it is the dominant philosophy of our society. How many times do we hear, in response to someone becoming religious (of whatever stripe) or having some event they consider momentous, "Well, good for you" or "I'm glad that works for you" or whatever saying makes it plain the speaker doesn't necessarily sign on, but they don't want to belittle it either? This is our world.

Trump is just a "fruit" (end result) of it. For example:

, , , Tony Soprano establishes a close bond with his daughter early on when he admits to her that he’s not actually a “waste management consultant.” In the postmodern world, there is no greater virtue then authenticity, and there is no greater vice then phoniness.

Why do people like Trump (those who do)? Because he speaks his mind and because he's not seen as a phony. They're tired of politicians who tell them what they want to hear and act, well, politically.

I'm not saying I like Trump. I am saying this explains him well.

fate

Why do people like Trump (those who do)? Because he speaks his mind and because he's not seen as a phony.

I think you're right.
That image is also what attracted people to enroll in Trump University. How'd that work out for them?
That's also why he has decided he has to undermine the media. And why they've decided they won't allow themselves to be undermined by Trump and his gang. Too many people pointing out his BS as soon as he spews it.

The great hope is that some in the republican congress will turn against Trump at some point. On some issue where they can't abide his BS and incompetence.
Or where he becomes so politically isolated that they can't risk backing him.
This is a guy who opens himself up to this...

Malala Yousafzai 'heartbroken' over Trump's action on refugees

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing- ... ugees-i-am

By the way, the countries that he named in his executive action have never had a refugee come to the US and perform an act of terror.
Saudi Arabia on the other hand ....

rickyp wrote:fate

Why do people like Trump (those who do)? Because he speaks his mind and because he's not seen as a phony.

I think you're right.
That image is also what attracted people to enroll in Trump University. How'd that work out for them?

Please find one person who says, "I attended Trump University because Trump speaks his mind and he's not a phony."

In other words, your "point" is irrelevant to the discussion.

That's also why he has decided he has to undermine the media. And why they've decided they won't allow themselves to be undermined by Trump and his gang. Too many people pointing out his BS as soon as he spews it.

More rubbish. Then again, it's your logic, so of course it is.

The media has gone after Trump not only because of what he says, but for who he is. They've made it very personal.

By the way, the countries that he named in his executive action have never had a refugee come to the US and perform an act of terror.

How many Somali immigrants have gone overseas to fight for terror organizations from the US?

https://www.theatlantic.com/internation ... sm/514361/

Fate

How many Somali immigrants have gone overseas to fight for terror organizations from the US?

According to NPR about 250 Americans in total went over seas to join ISIS or Al Queda by 2105.
Apparently the flow is almost non-existent now.

How would Trumps' travel ban stop immigrants already in the country from returning?

What most experts on terrorism do say is that it provides ISIL with a huge propaganda tool.
Even some republicans.

Our most important allies in the fight against ISIL are the vast majority of Muslims who reject its apocalyptic ideology of hatred,” the senators explain. “This executive order sends a signal, intended or not, that America does not want Muslims coming into our country. That is why we fear this executive order may do more to help terrorist recruitment than improve our security.”
“Ultimately,” they write, “we fear this executive order will become a self-inflicted wound in the fight against terrorism.”

And how does the ban affect Iraq? Are they allies of the US in the fight against ISIL or not?
Or the rest of the Muslim world>?

The forcefully worded statement from the Saudi Arabia-based Organization of Islamic Cooperation, a group that promotes Muslim solidarity in economic, social and political affairs, arrived as the fallout from Trump's ban for citizens of Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia and Yemen — all OIC members — showed no sign of abating.

"The OIC calls upon the United States government to reconsider this blanket decision and maintain its moral obligation to provide leadership and hope at a time of great uncertainty and unrest in the world," the organization said.

The OIC's rebuke was the official criticism out of Saudi Arabia, a staunch U.S. ally, and came just a day after Trump spoke to Saudi King Salman and invited him to the White House. Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Egypt, countries with large Muslim populations, were not included in the ban.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/worl ... /97234332/

rickyp wrote:https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/01/trump-immigration-ban-terrorism/514361/

Fate

How many Somali immigrants have gone overseas to fight for terror organizations from the US?

According to NPR about 250 Americans in total went over seas to join ISIS or Al Queda by 2105.
Apparently the flow is almost non-existent now.

How would Trumps' travel ban stop immigrants already in the country from returning?

Why should we import more people from Somalia so they can come here, take welfare, then go to fight us?

What most experts on terrorism do say is that it provides ISIL with a huge propaganda tool.
Even some republicans.

I really don't care. Let them recruit every Muslim susceptible to such thinking. Let them all gather in a central place. Then, let us kill them all.

No one who is against jihad today suddenly is in favor of it because of Trump, or Gitmo, or because of whatever nonsense someone spouts on about.

I'm pretty much sick of this idea, or even the suggestion, that terrorism is our fault. Terrorism is no more my fault than cancer is. It is a disease and should be treated as one.

Doctor Fate wrote:Why should we import more people from Somalia so they can come here, take welfare, then go to fight us?

Like Iman did?

What most experts on terrorism do say is that it provides ISIL with a huge propaganda tool.
Even some republicans.

I really don't care. Let them recruit every Muslim susceptible to such thinking. Let them all gather in a central place. Then, let us kill them all.

Yeah, they will just congregate in one place and wait to be exterminated. No chance they would think of spreading out across various places, or popping up in various parts of the world. After all, we know that all of ISIL is in Syria at the moment, right?

Of course, the latter is what is happening. And in the meantime they are killing people. Mostly other muslims, but hey, why should you care about them.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:Why should we import more people from Somalia so they can come here, take welfare, then go to fight us?

Like Iman did?

What most experts on terrorism do say is that it provides ISIL with a huge propaganda tool.
Even some republicans.

I really don't care. Let them recruit every Muslim susceptible to such thinking. Let them all gather in a central place. Then, let us kill them all.

Yeah, they will just congregate in one place and wait to be exterminated.

2 points:

1. It was alleged to be an ISIL recruiting tool. ISIL is, for the most part, congregated in one place--thus, the Islamic State in Libya.
2. Any Muslim who is recruited to ISIL was not neutral to the idea of perpetrating violence in the name of Islam in the first place. This idea that our language or some thing or another (Gitmo) takes a peace-loving Muslim and turns them into a murderer is patent nonsense.

No chance they would think of spreading out across various places, or popping up in various parts of the world. After all, we know that all of ISIL is in Syria at the moment, right?

Of course, the latter is what is happening. And in the meantime they are killing people. Mostly other muslims, but hey, why should you care about them.

I do care. And, I would take action to defend those Muslims by eradicating ISIS (and, no, not by sending hundreds of thousands of troops)

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:Why should we import more people from Somalia so they can come here, take welfare, then go to fight us?

Like Iman did?

She is Somali-born and was "imported" (by which I assume you mean "allowed to immigrate") into the USA.

What most experts on terrorism do say is that it provides ISIL with a huge propaganda tool.
Even some republicans.

I really don't care. Let them recruit every Muslim susceptible to such thinking. Let them all gather in a central place. Then, let us kill them all.

Yeah, they will just congregate in one place and wait to be exterminated.

2 points:

1. It was alleged to be an ISIL recruiting tool. ISIL is, for the most part, congregated in one place--thus, the Islamic State in Libya.

ISIS is the Islamic State in Iraq and Levant". They have member/affiliate groups in various countries, those which are members are designated by the location as being in a "Province" of the "state". The Libya Province is but one of those, along with several others in places like Egypt, Pakistan/Afghanistan, Yemen, Russia, Nigeria (Boko Haram) and Algeria.

So no, not one central place.

2. Any Muslim who is recruited to ISIL was not neutral to the idea of perpetrating violence in the name of Islam in the first place. This idea that our language or some thing or another (Gitmo) takes a peace-loving Muslim and turns them into a murderer is patent nonsense.

Well, the process of radicalisation does tend to work best with those at least ambivalent to violence, but there is also the question of not just creating members out of nowhere, but people who move towards sympathy with extremists as well.

No chance they would think of spreading out across various places, or popping up in various parts of the world. After all, we know that all of ISIL is in Syria at the moment, right?

Of course, the latter is what is happening. And in the meantime they are killing people. Mostly other muslims, but hey, why should you care about them.

I do care. And, I would take action to defend those Muslims by eradicating ISIS (and, no, not by sending hundreds of thousands of troops)

So how do you eradicate ISIS/ISIL/Daesh? And do you do it in a way that avoids mass civilian / hostage casualties?

danivon wrote:

2. Any Muslim who is recruited to ISIL was not neutral to the idea of perpetrating violence in the name of Islam in the first place. This idea that our language or some thing or another (Gitmo) takes a peace-loving Muslim and turns them into a murderer is patent nonsense.

Well, the process of radicalisation does tend to work best with those at least ambivalent to violence, but there is also the question of not just creating members out of nowhere, but people who move towards sympathy with extremists as well.

Again, I call "folly."

I am a pretty fundamentalist type. You can throw as many Christians in jail as you want--even if they have not committed acts of terror. Keep them in Gitmo. I'm still not going to favor killing innocent men, women and children.

No way.

You have to accept homicidal theology, e.g. "Death to . . ." before you are susceptible to "radicalization." That seems to be predominately an issue with Islam. (I know it's cool for liberals to defend a religion that is antithetical to what they believe in, but that's not my issue)

Doctor Fate wrote:I do care. And, I would take action to defend those Muslims by eradicating ISIS (and, no, not by sending hundreds of thousands of troops)

So how do you eradicate ISIS/ISIL/Daesh? And do you do it in a way that avoids mass civilian / hostage casualties?

I've laid out my plans on these pages before and I don't care to debate them again.

I will say this: I did, in my haste and multi-tasking, say "Libya" when I meant "Levant." It is true that they have spread. That's Obama's fault. That said, the "caliphate" is a massive recruiting tool--bigger than anything else. Ending that is a pretty big deal. Furthermore, they want to defend it because there is prestige invested in it.

As for Iman, okay. However, plenty of Somalis live in Minnesota. I think it is our #1 State for producing ISIS and wannabe-ISIS idiots, if not in gross numbers then certainly per capita.

fate

I am a pretty fundamentalist type. You can throw as many Christians in jail as you want--even if they have not committed acts of terror. Keep them in Gitmo. I'm still not going to favor killing innocent men, women and children.
No way.

What a high bar you set...

fate

You have to accept homicidal theology, e.g. "Death to . . ." before you are susceptible to "radicalization." That seems to be predominately an issue with Islam. (I know it's cool for liberals to defend a religion that is antithetical to what they believe in, but that's not my issue)

The biggest problem in North America are lone wolves who "self radicalize", primarily over the internet these days...
And Trump and the latest "ban - not a ban - ban" has already been used to construct more ISIL propoganda.

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/video/isis-su ... a-45162798

Its not always Islam radicalizing these lone wolves either... Nor is the phenomenon of the radicalized loner shooting innocents in schools or malls a new phenomenon or a phenomenon dominated by Muslim.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/non-muslim ... ca/5333619
And its certainly not a phenomenon in the US that is dominated by former refugees.
examples of recent terror events.
Alexander Bissonnette
Dylan Roof

But after sifting through databases, media reports, court documents, and other sources, Alex Nowrasteh, an immigration expert at the libertarian Cato Institute, has arrived at a striking finding: Nationals of the seven countries singled out by Trump have killed zero people in terrorist attacks on U.S. soil between 1975 and 2015.
Zero.
Six Iranians, six Sudanese, two Somalis, two Iraqis, and one Yemeni have been convicted of attempting or executing terrorist attacks on U.S. soil during that time period, according to Nowrasteh’s research.

https://www.theatlantic.com/internation ... sm/514361/

I doubt Trump had any idea what he meant by "Extreme Vetting" when he coined the phrase. Since 2011 US refugee applicants go through the most comprehensive vetting process of any person entering the US.
It would have been interesting to know what changes he wanted to make to take the comprehensive vetting up to his hypothetical "extreme vetting". Did any journalist ever challenge him on that?
I'd guess it was just BS and bluster intended for political purposes only, that Bannon seized on, and now his minions are stuck trying to construct some substantive evidence and rationale.

I'd submit that at least since 2011 refugee applicants have already been going through extreme vetting. And the current travel ban, even if a temporary ban, will see no improvements to the vetting process.
Its just a big con.

rickyp wrote:fate

I am a pretty fundamentalist type. You can throw as many Christians in jail as you want--even if they have not committed acts of terror. Keep them in Gitmo. I'm still not going to favor killing innocent men, women and children.
No way.

What a high bar you set...

Step off.

I am merely using all the "motivations" you batty liberals use to explain why Islamic terror is *really* our fault.

fate

You have to accept homicidal theology, e.g. "Death to . . ." before you are susceptible to "radicalization." That seems to be predominately an issue with Islam. (I know it's cool for liberals to defend a religion that is antithetical to what they believe in, but that's not my issue)

The biggest problem in North America are lone wolves who "self radicalize", primarily over the internet these days...

The biggest problem is homicidal Islamists. I don't care where they get radicalized. The truth is there is a kernel of "jihad" in too many.

And Trump and the latest "ban - not a ban - ban" has already been used to construct more ISIL propoganda.

So what?

Again, stop every Christian in the world from coming to the US. Kick me out. I'm still not committing jihad-like crimes.

Its not always Islam radicalizing these lone wolves either... Nor is the phenomenon of the radicalized loner shooting innocents in schools or malls a new phenomenon or a phenomenon dominated by Muslim.

Straw meet man. Who said "always?"

The question is what is wrong with Trump taking some time to examine the vetting procedures? After all, who will be held to account if there is an attack? He will. So, it's reasonable for him to take a while to revamp them as needed.

Just a question...

Who has it better, Christians in Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia and Yemen; or Muslims in America?