OK, that's a better swing at it, thanks.

Is terrorism by muslim immigrants a big problem in the US? I was under the impression it was pretty rare. What's his policy on domestic terrorism and the current epidemic of mass shootings you are sadly suffering?

If we shouldn't guffaw at Trump he should really stop doing such hilariously awful things. It's a pretty longstanding tradition here to laugh at politicians here though, perhaps you're more sensitive to it or something. Our Prime Minister allegedly sexually violated a pig's head! I bet Trump hasn't managed that yet.

Regarding us not making it much of a discussion - there is the grand sum of fuck-all we can do about the US President. Whoever it is will no doubt continue bombing the fuck out of the middle east etc and so on and nothing we can do or say will change that. We have very very limited agency over our own government's behaviour, never mind yours. So in the meantime taking the piss out of it when it's funny is a thing we can do.

>>Our Prime Minister allegedly sexually violated a pig's head! I bet Trump hasn't managed that yet.

Tell Trump that Cameron did that and I'm sure he'll reply with a signed affidavit from his butcher to prove that he did it first, and with the whole drove.

> Well, I was always taught that if two people always agree, one is not necessary.

Yup.

She's not agreeing to that sofa being moved. She's staunchly sitting there in protest that he wants the sofa moving away from the window, presumably to allow more natural light in.

I don't like sofas in windows. People walking by can see the back of your head.

I bet Truffy would have something to say on this matter.

Where is Truffy nowadays?

Why the personal attacks? Dave was stating his view, he didn't make it personal.

edit - yes, I need to learn read all the thread before I reply. Kos already addressed this. LOL

I'm not sure 'addressed' is the right term... (giggle)

It's what you do when you're trying to defend something. If it's defendable, you calmly and maturely make your point and back it up accordingly. If it's indefensible, you just slander the other person.

Fixrman: It's a simple fact that if you are killed in America by another human, that person is *far* more likely to be a none-Muslim fellow American than a Muslim terrorist.

Since 2001, there have been 3,380 American people killed in terrorist related incidents - and this includes the 2,990 people killed in the September 11th attacks. Alternatively, in the same time there have been 406,496 people killed in gun crime on American soil. So, over a 99% chance of being killed due to American gun crime than in a terrorist incident.

Sorry, but that is outrageous. Yet according to Trump, you should ban all Muslims entering the country and force them all to carry ID, yet it's wrong for Obama to suggest that gun laws should be tightened in any way to try and reduce these fatality rates. According to you, Trump is speaking sense and Obama is the dangerous one?

Do you not see how fucked up that is?
 

http://www.mtv.com/news/2690960/aladdin-bombing-fictional-country-agrabah-public-policy-polling/?xrs=_s.fb_main

Nobody you're arguing against has actually said that though. How does this strengthen your position? The problem is nobody outside of his fanboys thinks he's remotely capable of any of that.

Darwin's on it.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35238349?ocid=socialflow_facebook&ns_mchannel=social&ns_campaign=bbcnews&ns_source=facebook

I find it amusing that he's going on about withholding "£500m of development" from his golf course up here if he gets banned.

First of all, if it's costing that much then he's hiring the wrong contractors. And secondly, he's basically threatening *not* to bulldoze numerous hectares of a site of special scientific interest. Oddly enough, I don't have a problem with that. Trump's threat is actually an invitation as far as I'm concerned.

Edit: For anyone not familiar with the area, This is the view that Trump wants to supposedly spend £500m replacing with another golf course...

Well, if one paints by the numbers, since 1972 - probably no. Thanks by the way for a nice reply.

A quick search (How many attacks by Muslims in America) revealed this, which in no way did I have time to verify (nor did I even read it to see if there were any political rants, I just looked at the numbers. Now, it comes from the Internet, so YMMV. The numbers [don't seem to be] wild, so I used it as a reference. BTW, the numbers do not include the recent Philadelphia shooting of a police officer whilst stopped in his patrol car by a man claiming to have done the shooting in the name of Islam. Our asshat new Mayor of Philadelphia, Jim Kenney, said in a presser that it had nothing to do with Islam, despite the suspect saying so. A rather inauspicious start as a new mayor, I suspect.

Incidentally, the police officer who was shot is my boss's son's partner - not that it changes the situation much, but it does hit closer to home, so to speak.
 

Perhaps it is just the cultural difference of things. To be fair, I wouldn't say our Democratic base criticises Trump much differently to you lot, except that I know more Democrats here, talked to more Democrats here; many political-level Democrats (office holders) have been well-educated an in many cases are intelligent, but in contrast a quite large percentage of their supporters are not. Many of those Democratic supporters do not even know the platform their beloved candidates run on, just voting for them because of the promise of largess.

As far as the hilariously awful things he does, is it really any different to what is being done now? For example, obama's Middle East policies (to the extent he actually has them) have been dismal failures; obama is widely touted as a good speaker (never mind the teleprompter ;-p). I'll take a less gifted orator any day favour of someone who will promote the best progress in America without pandering exclusively to special interests.
 

It is the "alleged" part that has yet to be determined, no? But of course, the media will run with something like that here in a character assassination of someone they don't like, although they make excuses for or fail to report on people they do like. The media here has been licking obama's boots for ages.

There's a lot of time for Trumpy-boy to prove or disprove himself. I just hope (and it is thin at best) that the American people do a better job at electing a president than they have the last two go rounds. Unfortunately, the best guy for the job doesn't want the job, and the lot we have now are polarising at best.

Enjoy the entertainment while it lasts. I wish we could limit the bloviating to less than six months, and limit the money spent to about three million per candidate.





 

I'm glad you feel the same, but I guess most people would.

It just seems like your Presidential election will last around 18 months due to the nature of your system - opposition not having a regular leader, being a presidential rather than party based victory, 2 term limit.

Ignoring the fact that you can't stand Obama, would you be in favour of allowing Presidents to sit for 3 terms?

I just feel like 8 years isn't long enough to get a decent amount done, especially if there has been a change in party.

Trump:
  So what is wrong with that?
  Absolutely. Let me ask you this, what was the obama response to Fast and Furious? That was a gun walking program, if you don't know. What did obama and his attorney general do about those guns? Seems that guns are dangerous only in certain circumstances, such as when we can pander to the media frenzy when a news even occurs.

You should read the June 2013 White House report on guns, commissioned by the current POTUS. ;-) I'll bet you won't see a reference by obama to it though, because the results do not reflect his current narrative.

The currecnt laws need to be enforced is what needs to happen, and there needs to be a vehicle to report mental health issues to prevent those same people from owning a gun. That can't happen now. Without enforcing currenyt laws, what is the sense of making new ones?

Just so you know, the "Gun Show Loop Hole" is a specious argument for more gun laws. The Loop Hole assumes that there are unlicensed gun sales going on at gun shows, yet this is rarely ever the case. Illegal guns are sold and obtained by illegals possessing illegal guns, or are obtained by people who are legally allowed to obtain guns who give access or use to people who shouldn't have them.

One cannot purchase guns over the internet without going through a FFL dealer, who must perform a background check. Contrary to what obama says, guns are not "easier to purchase than groceries"; last time I purchased a pistol, it took me about a half an hour to select one, and it took the PIC System at least 15 minutes or more to analyse and approve my purchase.

The last time I purchased groceries, I walked in, selected all that I wanted with no one's having told me I can't - and proceeded to the checkout terminal and left. No one checked to see if I was allowed to buy the groceries I selected, nobody questioned any of my purchases whatsoever.

So if obama could let automatic weapons walk in to Mexico and whoever knows where else - without regard as to where they could really end up - why is he so worried about it now? He even ran interference for Eric Holder to protect the program and actions. So tell me that makes sense.

By the way, all in America should be required to have ID. I am required to have it at all times, as should any person in America. We should have to present ID in order to vote as well, just as one must do in order to collect a cheque at the Social Security Office. ;-)


 

So how is that any different to the Empty Suit currently occupying the White House? He's had eight years almost, so when will he do something positive, other than normalising relations with Cuba, something with which I actually agree?

> So what is wrong with that?

Is it wrong to judge the whole of the US by the 0.062% that voted for your asshat Jim Kenney?

Trump wants to ban one fifth of the world's population from entering the US, in response to the actions of somewhere between 0.006% and 0.024%

That's between 99.976% and 99.994% of a group of people that are being misrepresented, prejudged and excluded - but they're Muslim so it's ok? ¬_¬

Yes. But it isn't wrong to judge the percentage of Philadelphians who voted for Kenney (and Democrats in general), since it was only a Philadelphia election. The Democrats have a 7-1 advantage over Republicans in voter registration, so it is highly unlikely that a Republican can ever become mayor again. The Democratic voter base keeps electing the same dopes who pacify them, the tax and spend cycle continues, and the city deteriorates even deeper into debt and blight. It is inevitable when government tries to do all for people who won't do for themselves, so they can sit home and collect their welfare dollars and watch their big screen TVs all day.

The Democrats are pretty much ruining every big city in the U.S. they control, and the 10 poorest cities in America are run by Democrats.
 

That's not necessarily a permanent ban, he wants to get something in place to identify people who may be prone to commit acts of terror. I see nothing wrong with this. Tashfeen Malik entered the U.S. with false papers. Syed Rizwan Farook was born in Chicago and met Malik in 2013 on line. He met her in person during the Haji pilgrimage in Saudi Arabia and apparently became interested in jihad sometime during that relationship. They both identified themselves as Muslim, albeit radicalised.

If you are going to reduce things to percentages, then the 14 people they murdered don't matter, since they only represent a small percentage compared to the 330M+ American population still alive. But since All Lives Matter - yes, we can and should restrict immigration of anyone who we suspect could do people in our nation harm. If it bothers you, you can open English borders wide open and welcome anyone you want with associated risk.

Perhaps I am an equal opportunity excluder, because I'd say the same thing about Italians, Greeks, Methodists, Scotsman, Poles, Russians, Germans, Ukranians, Mexicans, Canadians and anyone else if they showed a propensity or tendency to want to kill Americans. I recently drove a young man from the UAE to a big box store so he could buy some housewares to take home that he can't get in the UAE. He was Muslim, and upon hearing the news report that was playing over the radio, he was quick to denounce the Radical Muslims as he called them, and said "those people do not speak for Islam". He said they are using religion as an excuse, only. He supported the U.S. not letting radicals in the U.S. I found him to be a rather engaging, intelligent young man who was very unhappy with the fact that certain radical people are causing acts of terror in the name of Muslims/Islam.

>>>He supported the U.S. not letting radicals in the U.S.

I think everyone can support that. You and Trump support not letting in Muslims. Very different.

It's probably worth focusing more on your domestic terrorism. What about those militia folks in Oregon, how is that not terrorism?