Trump Bans Muslims & Sharia Law

Posted by PiPhD 3 years, 4 months ago to Politics
13 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

~ Trump BANS Muslims & Sharia Law in the United States of America!

~ Donald Trump's Muslim/Sharia Law Ban [image 2]

~ This version is an easier to read version of this one: https://mic.com/articles/166963/read-...

~ This is another version that is an easier to read version: http://dailynigerianews.naijamotherla...

Add Comment


All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by $ MikeMarotta 3 years, 4 months ago
    The problem with down votes (and voting in general) is that the vote does not come with a statement. I gave the first negative because the sources were not primary, but were, in fact, from potentially harmful sites. I did not look at any of them. Seeing the news story here, I went to the White House website and found the authoritative text there.

    I do not know who gave the second thumbs down. I predict that it was from a Trump supporter who fears Muslim terrorism but who has no fear of Christian terrorism. That down-vote was differently motivated than mine.

    I vote +1 for stuff that I disagree with, if the post is worthy because it is well-written to generate equally thoughtful responses. In other words: I disagree with the opinion, but it is a discussion worth having.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ MikeMarotta 3 years, 4 months ago
    Rather than goto those dubious URLs, read the order on the White House website here:
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 3 years, 4 months ago
      Dubious?! Most of those are useful "images" Mike. See more of them below...
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ MikeMarotta 3 years, 4 months ago
        They are dubious because the sites themselves are minefields of computer viruses, spam, and phishing. I would never goto a Nigerian news site. I also never go to RU-TV or really just about any place offshore. If I have a concern, I at least make sure that the URL at the top in the browser bar matches the URL displayed at the bottom of the screen in the address bar.

        Facebook, of course, is for the common crowd. Though some people with pages there might be intelligent and insightful, it is a platform for high school reunions and Mommy Bloggers.

        If you wanted people to see the text of the Executive Order, the White House was the best source to link to.

        That all being so, I have to confess to never having heard of mic.com until you posted the link. Googling "reputation mic.com" took me immediately to Wikipedia:
        "Mic is a media company that targets millennials. The company reaches 19 million unique monthly visitors and has a higher composition of 18- to 34-year-old readers than any other millennial-focused news site, including BuzzFeed and Vice.

        Mic received early attention for its on-the-ground coverage during the revolution in Tunisia, and The Hollywood Reporter remarked that Mic features "stories that intelligently cover serious issues important to young people"."
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • -3
          Posted by 3 years, 4 months ago
          Scott DeSapio, YET AGAIN! MikeMarotta just stated that "the sites themselves are minefields of computer viruses, spam, and phishing" which is not only NOT TRUE but this has NOT been PROVEN! Again, please caution MikeMarotta on making OBVIOUSLY WRONG statements! Thank you.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ MikeMarotta 3 years, 4 months ago
    This Executive Order is an example of a non-objective secret law. I read the White House document and I followed the links in that document. I am at a loss to find any law that specified five of those seven nations.

    The original order did identify Syria and Iraq. But the order then also cited other orders. I read those. They set criteria and issued warnings, but none of the primary links in the White House document actually named Yemen, Iran, Libya, Somalia, or Sudan.

    Moreover, I went to Al Arabiya English, CNN, Reuters, and NPR and no one cited a law. They all seemed to be quoting from some unidentified document or source.

    Ayn Rand pointed out that the horrors in a dictatorship stem from non-objective law. It is not that the laws of a dictatorship are harsh, but that they are secret and arbitrary. Rand cited Anti-Trust laws as an example of that. They were unenforceable because they made everything illegal (charging the same, charging less, charging more). But you could buy your way out with pull. Thus, Major League sports were exempt from anti-trust laws. Rand gave ancient Rome as an example of objective law. The laws were not intended to protect individual rights, but the laws were publicly posted and uniformly enforced. Thus, they were objective.

    This law is non-objective. Where is the definition of which nations are prohibited?

    Most of all, the one nation that is truly the source of jihadi terrorism was not mentioned: Saudi Arabia.

    It is not wrong to be concerned with Muslim terrorism, but where was the moral outrage when the IRA was getting money from Catholic groups in the USA?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  


  • Comment hidden. Undo