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.





 

 

Did you ever see such a messed up situation in your whole life, son?

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?

 

Did you ever see such a messed up situation in your whole life, son?

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.

 

Did you ever see such a messed up situation in your whole life, son?

Right, and neither ISIS nor al-Qaeda are the result of an Islam-wide election, so anything that uses the actions of those groups as an excuse is as wrong as blaming the entire US for the actions of Philadelphia.

> I'd say the same thing about [anyone] if they showed a propensity or tendency to want to kill Americans

Muslims do not want to kill Americans.

What would you know of it? Drink your tea.

 

Did you ever see such a messed up situation in your whole life, son?

Yeah, right. But no.  (fail)

Quote: 

Radical Muslims do. Until we know the difference, none shall pass. Ni!

 

Did you ever see such a messed up situation in your whole life, son?

Just to be clear, the US is fundamentally capable of operating in near isolation.  While it is not operated this way, it is feasible.  There are two approaches that could be taken, and it is a point of internal discussions all of the time:
- Stop importing goods and let the rest of the world just have fun on their own - yes this is a real concept in the US
- Try to help out counties that have less opportunity, by purchasing goods from them, even to our own detriment.  This is what we are doing today.

I realize that very wealthy and powerful people push their ideas out to the world and really force some things on others, and Americans have really mixed opinions about this.

As a practical matter, the average American has zero influence on this, nor benefits from it.  If anything, our foreign policy and trade (really just purchases of goods from others ) costs us a lot of money and good will.

Every crime is not terrorism.  Classifying it as such just weakens its real impact and how to correctly deal with it.