Off Topic Chat. (MOD NOTE post# 3949 and post#5279)

Munsterlad102

Mellor wrote: »

Not sure what the above is about. Wasn't around for a bit. Including the voting.




I think the point was that one travel ban was based on public health, ie COVID. And the other one was based on religion. So they weren't similar.

If he criticize the religion banned, then banned Buddhists from travel, then that would be hypocrisy.

Just looking at this objectively one could argue that Trump’s travel ban was in the interests of public health and safety too, preventing terrorists from Muslim majority countries, like the ones who attacked France several times, from getting into the country. I’m not necessarily saying that is or isn’t my opinion, just that they could be both perceived as being in the public’s health interests.

Also the ban was from Muslim majority countries, so even Christians couldn’t get it from those countries, let’s also not forget that Muslims from those countries have been attacking the US and Europe for years now, so there is logic behind the travel ban.

civdef

Cass wrote: »

That false.

It was a national security issue given that the first on the list was the worlds number one for terrorism, Iran. The religious angle was the media's take after criticism by opposition parties. They were listed due to the high probability of terrorism and/or attacks from those countries. The original list:

• Iran
• Iraq
• Libya
• Somalia
• Sudan
• Syria

Then Iraq and Sudan were removed in 2020 with three other countries added, with restrictions more so than ban:

• Chad
• North Korea
• Venezuela

The ban in Venezula only applied to Governmental and Presidential officials.


Although all three travel bans were challenged in court they, or more accurately the third and final one, were upheld by the supreme court in 2018.

The only thing undermining the narrative on that is that Trump himself was calling for a complete ban on all Muslims entering the US during his election campaign. This was done numerous times on public media.
Just to make sure everyone was clear, he also said he would have no problem with letting in Christian Refugees from Muslim countries.

Hard not to see that as religious.

My own suspicion is that what got into the eventual Executive Order when he won the election was the closest legal version of that his advisors could come up with.

Munsterlad102

Cass wrote: »

I read the article a few days back so correct any mistakes i may make.

If they're using data to monitor people's activity/distance from their home then they must have some data relating to the person and their home address in order to monitor/figure out how far the person has travelled. So how can it be anonymous if they need access to certain data to get the data?

If that makes sense?

Surely that must go against some privacy law? What are they going to do, rock up to your house if you step outside your perimeter? And what happens if your phones location isn’t accurate? I know when I used the 5km radius website, it put my location at the other side of town and put some of places I go outside of the radius. I just think that these are all to many variable to use for the ordinary person, maybe the serial offender who travels the length and breath of the country but I guess we’ll have to wait and find out.

As to the GDPR and anonymity, I’m not sure who’d 3 would be allowed to give the data to as they are data controllers. It can’t be practical if it’s anonymous, that’s just telling AGS that someone broke the law but not who.

Grizzly 45

civdef wrote: »

The only thing undermining the narrative on that is that Trump himself was calling for a complete ban on all Muslims entering the US during his election campaign. This was done numerous times on public media.
Just to make sure everyone was clear, he also said he would have no problem with letting in Christian Refugees from Muslim countries.

Hard not to see that as religious.

My own suspicion is that what got into the eventual Executive Order when he won the election was the closest legal version of that his advisors could come up with.

Said in his electioneering campaign...And as Mr Rabbite[Labour] famously said: "You'll say anything in an election to get votes." Sauce for the goose an all that...

For such a bigot its strange he picked up 3% more votes from the Muslim community in 2020 bringing him up from 13 to 17 % according to the Council on American Islamic relations.
Might have something to do with all the relative outbreak of peace all over the Middle East,and him not bombing it to bring "peace and democracy" for awhile?

Grizzly 45

Munsterlad102 wrote: »

Surely that must go against some privacy law? What are they going to do, rock up to your house if you step outside your perimeter? And what happens if your phones location isn’t accurate? I know when I used the 5km radius website, it put my location at the other side of town and put some of places I go outside of the radius. I just think that these are all to many variable to use for the ordinary person, maybe the serial offender who travels the length and breath of the country but I guess we’ll have to wait and find out.

As to the GDPR and anonymity, I’m not sure who’d 3 would be allowed to give the data to as they are data controllers. It can’t be practical if it’s anonymous, that’s just telling AGS that someone broke the law but not who.

I'd say their excuse is they say it is group anonymous data so it isn't violating the GPDR, and yes a phone company can locate a phone to within +/- 5meters.
Well known , but in fairness to phone companies, they have point blank refused AGS and govt requests for this data stating privacy laws here in Ireland.
However, what is scary is the fact that this data is now just being handed out even in bulk, and that it wouldn't take a lot of research to see out of that cluster how many and at what time and location to home in on the "breakouts"
Like anything these days,it starts with a "It's just,for,because,during,until,while....statement that chips away some more personal liberty.

Cass

civdef wrote: »

The only thing undermining the narrative on that is that Trump himself was calling for a complete ban on all Muslims entering the US during his election campaign. .

Was it in the official ban wording that the Supreme court upheld?

If not then what he believed/believes or called for personally doesn't make a balls bit of difference.

Anything considered as the reason(s) for it after is just supposition.

Cass

Munsterlad102 wrote: »

Surely that must go against some privacy law?

How many times have/has a company said "its fine" only to be sued into next year?

Sure our own Government done the same with the national identity card. Was told it (or their use(s)) were unlawful and continued to issue them.

IOW at some point they don't care and just do as they please.

civdef

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

For such a bigot its strange he picked up 3% more votes from the Muslim community in 2020 bringing him up from 13 to 17 % according to the Council on American Islamic relations.

That's a weak enough statistic though - can't be too far outside the margin of error - and hardly constitutes a ringing endorsement from a demographic!

I actually kind of agree with you on the point that the anti-muslim stuff was basically electioneering bull**** by him rather than a core believe though - I'd put it down to pandering to low common denominator instincts among his desired electorate. The fact he didn't follow though on it left a lot of them disappointed.

I'm seeing a good bit of similar comment from the 2A community om the states lately. Despite all his posturing during the election he didn't deliver them much, and actually took away bump stocks.

I'm not sure he was much more of an anti-muslim than a pro-christian - both those angles were just hypocritical spiel to get votes.

civdef

Cass wrote: »

Was it in the official ban wording that the Supreme court upheld?

If not then what he believed/believes or called for personally doesn't make a balls bit of difference.

If he actually used the language he used on the election campaign in an executive order it would have been stuck down instantly and probably got him impeached (quite possibly all the way on that one).

If someone goes around mouthing off for ages that he's going to murder someone, then a week later "accidentally" backs over them with a tractor - it points to intent and would be hard to disregard.

Cass

civdef wrote: »

If he actually used the language he used on the election campaign in an executive order it would have been stuck down instantly ..................

So he didn't use that language in the EO. The argument is moot.

Grizzly 45

civdef wrote: »

That's a weak enough statistic though - can't be too far outside the margin of error - and hardly constitutes a ringing endorsement from a demographic!

I actually kind of agree with you on the point that the anti-muslim stuff was basically electioneering bull**** by him rather than a core believe though - I'd put it down to pandering to low common denominator instincts among his desired electorate. The fact he didn't follow though on it left a lot of them disappointed.

I'm seeing a good bit of similar comment from the 2A community om the states lately. Despite all his posturing during the election he didn't deliver them much, and actually took away bump stocks.

I'm not sure he was much more of an anti-muslim than a pro-christian - both those angles were just hypocritical spiel to get votes.

Well, considering a Muslim organisation did the survey itself and not a professional poll taking company...:)

Yeah the ".Bump stock ban".. Bawl ..Boo Hooo...He took away my useless bit of plastic cos I can't figure out how to waste ammo inefficiently or pull the trigger any quicker. Therefore he is a sellout":rolleyes:
Despite the fact that this is the weakest firearms legislation ever on a statute book that is soo full of loopholes you can drive two artics thru side by side thru it. On a simple basis, only Congress can rewrite legislation to define these as machine guns not BATFE or the DOJ. Nor does it ban a rake of other ammo wasting gadgets.

If they had anything to be grumpy about is that he didn't get silencers off the 200usd NFA ticket or get full concealed carry reciprocity between the States done. Hardly surprising as up to the midterm elections we had enough to deal with "The Russians" and it got lost in the maelstrom.

Don't think he is either pro or anti-Muslim TBH on a personal level. Think he was doing what politicians do. Show you your fears and sell you a cure.

Grizzly 45

because [if] you want to keep someone away from your house, just fire the shotgun through the door.”

If you want to protect yourself, get a double-barrelled shotgun, have the shells, a 12-gauge shotgun, and I promise you, as I told my wife — we live in an area that’s wooded and somewhat secluded — I said “Jill, if there’s ever a problem just walk out on the balcony here, walk out, put that double-barrelled shotgun and fire two blasts outside the house.” I promise you, whoever’s coming in is not

Current President of the US Joe Biden quotes.
Under Irish firearms law Joe Biden would not be permitted to hold a gun license from those public statements.... Change my mind!

Cass

Absolutely not even close to the same thing Grizz.

I said in other threads how being brought up in a country where there is a constitutional right to firearms brings a different mentality towards firearm ownership. I've seen and heard stories of people using their firearms (RTKBA stuff) and having it handed back to them either on the spot or later the same day.

So in America his comments would be comical from the point of view of them being so timid or useless, not because of the Irish perspective of involving months/years of court cases, defense costs, legality, etc.

In short apples and oranges dude.

Feisar

Ya can't post firearms related stuff on FB without restrictions but the bould Ibrahim Halawa can get a job there? My brain hurts.

https://twitter.com/RTE_PrimeTime/status/1354909127638712323

Cass

THEY GET PAID.



/looks for number of Boards HQ

civdef

Are you not getting anything???

I'm still getting a full pension from here from years ago - you must have been on the new contract

Cass

Grizzly 45

Cass wrote: »

Absolutely not even close to the same thing Grizz.

I said in other threads how being brought up in a country where there is a constitutional right to firearms brings a different mentality towards firearm ownership. I've seen and heard stories of people using their firearms (RTKBA stuff) and having it handed back to them either on the spot or later the same day.

So in America his comments would be comical from the point of view of them being so timid or useless, not because of the Irish perspective of involving months/years of court cases, defense costs, legality, etc.

In short apples and oranges dude.

Even in his first quote in the US there is no way you can get away with firing a shotgun or any firearm "thru a door" in a self-defence situation. As you have no visibility of your target or threat. Been enough people done for that,inc LEO for involuntary manslaughter.

The point is; That if Uncle Joe was to be applying for a firearms license here hypothetically, and he was waffling such advice as a public figure or even an individual, would a Garda Super take this into consideration in his decision to grant or refuse?

Mellor

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

San Bernardino shooting ...Farook's girlfriend, Malik a Pakistani-born green cardholder,... Farook was 1st gen Pakistan

That's actually one of the ones I referred to.
Farook was born in the US to immigrant parents. So he was a US citizen (2nd gen pakistan). And he would been unaffected by the travel ban, although he was living in the US so wouldn;t have made a difference either way.

Munsterlad102 wrote: »

Just looking at this objectively one could argue that Trump’s travel ban was in the interests of public health and safety too, preventing terrorists from Muslim majority countries, like the ones who attacked France several times, from getting into the country. I’m not necessarily saying that is or isn’t my opinion, just that they could be both perceived as being in the public’s health interests.

I understand and agree that's the logic behind it. Not any ingrained issue with islam itself. But there are existing laws to detains suspects, and people of watch lists.
And, the main point was that most of the people who carry out attacks have other citizenship that avoids attention. So they tend to not block very few would be criminals, but block all the law abiding citizens.

Example, the nutters who carried out the attacks in france, Charlie Hedbo shooting, were french citizens born in paris.

Cass wrote: »

Was it in the official ban wording that the Supreme court upheld?

If not then what he believed/believes or called for personally doesn't make a balls bit of difference.

Anything considered as the reason(s) for it after is just supposition.

Disagree. The original comment that started it wasn't about the wording in the EO. It was about Biden's comments on banning travel being hypocritical. It's entirely about comments made, so Trumps own comments should be fair game.

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Even in his first quote in the US there is no way you can get away with firing a shotgun or any firearm "thru a door" in a self-defence situation. As you have no visibility of your target or threat. Been enough people done for that,inc LEO for involuntary manslaughter.

Agree with this. Oscar Pistorius springs to mind.

The point is; That if Uncle Joe was to be applying for a firearms license here hypothetically, and he was waffling such advice as a public figure or even an individual, would a Garda Super take this into consideration in his decision to grant or refuse?

But he wasn't in Ireland or referring to Ireland when he said. He was responding specifically to a person who asked about home defense in the US.
So it's a bit silly to hypothetically change his location, but keep the statement intact.

Cass

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Even in his first quote in the US there is no way you can get away with firing a shotgun or any firearm "thru a door" in a self-defence situation.

You're not getting my point.

The, then, ex vice president of the US said to do this. If Michael Martin or Varadkar were to suggest something similar how well would it go down? Would it be any less legal/illegal than what biden said?

Cass

Mellor wrote: »

Disagree. The original comment that started it wasn't about the wording in the EO..

The original word that you used was a ban due to religion. The EO did not ban travel based on religion otherwise the SC would have struck it down.

Mellor

Cass wrote: »

The original word that you used was a ban due to religion. The EO did not ban travel based on religion otherwise the SC would have struck it down.

I’m aware. I wasn’t referring to the EO. I was generalising the countries collectively as Muslim (although, I’m also aware that’s not entirely accurate). I didn’t think it was a ban on all Muslims.

Grizzly 45

[QUOTE But there are existing laws to detains suspects, and people of watch lists.[/QUOTE]

The word "ban" was disingenuous and media emotive in this case. Bar Syria, which had a permanent ban due to the civil war and the IS being active there,every other country had either a 90 or 120-day suspension of visa issuance.Even Iran was under a 90-day suspension.One of the most vocal US enemies.So hardly a point blank refusal of anyone with a nationality from that country.

And, the main point was that most of the people who carry out attacks have other citizenship that avoids attention. So they tend to not block very few would-be criminals, but block all the law-abiding citizens

.

Do you actually know why there was a suspension of the visas from those countries? All of these people have to be screened as much as possible to make sure their arent a few terrorists in the flood.ergo it overloads the system too and you get false positives, and genuinely innocent people end up on Homeland security no-fly list, which is impossible to get off. As a few Irish people can attest to. So what would you rather have?

Mellor

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

The word "ban" was disingenuous and media emotive in this case. Bar Syria, which had a permanent ban due to the civil war and the IS being active there,every other country had either a 90 or 120-day suspension of visa issuance.

Playing semantics a bit there.
A 90-day suspension is a ban.
A ban doesn’t imply a permanent prohibition.

Even Iran was under a 90-day suspension.One of the most vocal US enemies.So hardly a point blank refusal of anyone with a nationality from that country.

The 90/120 day order was extended with a subsequent order that was in place 2017-2021. Not an outright ban, but a ban on visas, and as a visa is required. Amounts to the same thing.

...genuinely innocent people end up on Homeland security no-fly list, which is impossible to get off. As a few Irish people can attest to. So what would you rather have?

What? So in order to prevent a few innocent people from being able to fly to the US. The solution is to ban millions, and prevent them from flying to the US. I must be missing something there, because that’s makes no sense.

Grizzly 45

Mellor wrote: »

Playing semantics a bit there.
A 90-day suspension is a ban.

A ban doesn’t imply a permanent prohibition.

Yet you just contradicted yourself by saying above a "90 day suspension is a ban" Def Suspension the act of forcing someone to leave a job, position, or place for a usually short period of time as a form of punishment
Then you say a ban isnt
a permanent prohibition...Must mention that one to the minister for justice on the"handgun suspension" which isnt a ban according to your logic here?

T

he 90/120 day order was extended with a subsequent order that was in place 2017-2021. Not an outright ban, but a ban on visas, and as a visa is required. Amounts to the same thing.

But according to your definition, those were "suspended", so not a ban?

What? So in order to prevent a few innocent people from being able to fly to the US. The solution is to ban millions and prevent them from flying to the US. I must be missing something there, because that makes no sense.

Yeah like "millions" of Syrians and Iranians and Yemenis are travelling to the USA every year?? From countries that have the lowest income in the world,they are all denied the pleasure of visiting Disneyland and Las Vegas Hyperbole ...much?

Makes plenty of sense.,from a counter-terrorist viewpoint... If a few countries cant come into another country because they feel it is a risk, and whose Govts have been yelling "Death to American Infidels"...Too bad...And if something did happen the opposition would be the first one bawling about "breakdown in our national security,etc" Cant have it both ways...
But I would be intrigued to hear how t

Rows Grower

President Biden's wife is keeping a very low profile but seems like a lovely intelligent lady, nice to think there will be some integrity back in The White House again.

https://www.townandcountrymag.com/society/politics/a26944878/jill-biden-joe-biden-wife-facts/

Mellor

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

[
Yet you just contradicted yourself by saying above a "90 day suspension is a ban" Def Suspension the act of forcing someone to leave a job, position, or place for a usually short period of time as a form of punishment
Then you say a ban isnt
a permanent prohibition...Must mention that one to the minister for justice on the"handgun suspension" which isnt a ban according to your logic here?

Which part is causing confusion guy for?
There is no contradiction there.

You suggested calling it a ban was disingenuous. I’m saying that is incorrect. The word ban doesn’t imply permanent measures. A ban can be permanent or it can be temporary.
Referring to a temporary measure as a ban is not incorrect or disingenuous.

But according to your definition, those were "suspended", so not a ban?

Where are you pulling this definition from?
I think you’ve misunderstood something somewhere. Either word is acceptable, they are synonymous in that context.

If somebody gets caught drink driving, and put off the road. You could say they were banned from driving for 6 months. There is nothing wrong or disingenuous about that.
And picking on details like that is irrelevant semantics.

Yeah like "millions" of Syrians and Iranians and Yemenis are travelling to the USA every year?? From countries that have the lowest income in the world,they are all denied the pleasure of visiting Disneyland and Las Vegas Hyperbole ...much?

As opposed to the amount of people from those populations incorrectly on no-fly lists? A subset that is maybe a fraction of a percent.

The no-fly list point makes no sense, as with the travel ban those people still can’t fly.

Cass

This is why the EU comes in for criticism from those not absolutely enamored by it.

They, or more accurately she (UVL), made a bad tempered decision to try and "hurt" the UK by deciding what a country can do by overriding the Brexit agreement and stopping the transfer of china virus vaccines across the border.

It was met with anger, annoyance, and a serious amount of opposition from not only the Irish Government, but NI assembly, the UK government and even countries within EU that all said it was a childish move. It all lead to her making a very quick u-turn. The point being she/they thought they could do it.

I understand about the EU, being part of it, agreeing to EU mandates/laws, etc. but what kind of signal did this show other than "We're your masters, we do as we want" coupled with "we really don't care about taking care of people in this pandemic as long as we can hurt those who dared leave us or challenge us (in this case the UK)".

Cass

By the way anyone seen the goings on with Gamestop and wall street. Wonder how long they can hold out.

Its seems to surprise some, but i'm less surprised, that as soon as the tables were turned on the hedge fund crowd trading apps/sites and others stepped in to make sure they don't lose more money.

Grizzly 45

Cass wrote: »

By the way anyone seen the goings on with Gamestop and wall street. Wonder how long they can hold out.

Its seems to surprise some, but i'm less surprised, that as soon as the tables were turned on the hedge fund crowd trading apps/sites and others stepped in to make sure they don't lose more money.

And of course the "Alt right wing/Nazi " angle was played as well...Getting to be a cliche by now.