Summations Only

Modulous responds to Faith:

quote:

---

You posted one video that said essentially that 'The numbers don't exist but we know Sweden's 'rape problem' is due to immigration because foreign right-wing newspapers like the Daily Caller and the Daily Mail report rapes weekly - and even though there are tens of thousands of rapes - and only 52 weeks in a year - we know this accounts for a rise in the order of tens or hundreds of thousands of rapes'. That doesn't seem like sound reasoning to me.

---

And on top of it, it isn't true. Sweden hasn't seen an uptick in crime. What President Trump gets wrong about immigrants and crime in SwedenHere are the immigration numbers for Sweden: And here are the crime numbers for the same period: From the story: So when Trump backpedaled on his comments about Sweden saying that he didn't mean a terrorist attack (then what was the "what's happening last night in Sweden" comment supposed to mean?) but rather about crime, he was still talking out of his posterior.Despite what Faith wants us to believe, Interpol actually understands what the crime rate is in Europe and according to them, the largest source of terrorism isn't Muslims.It's right-wing groups.Same here in the US.

Faith responds to me:

quote:

---

Your charts of course miss the whole point, since the big increase in crime began with the current influx of '"refugees", within the last couple of years.

---

It seems like you didn't actually read the information you were presented with. The very first chart showed the immigration numbers. Your claim of "the last couple of years" is false. Sweden has taken in more refugees per capita than any other country in 2014 (yes, I mean that world wide). More than 15% of the population of Sweden is foreign born. It started a long time ago. Have you forgotten that the Arab Spring happened in 2011? That the Syrian Civil War started as a consequence of that event?And despite Sweden taking in large numbers of immigrants, the crime rate hasn't budged.And it seems like you didn't actually read the source. Here's what it said: So why would Sweden lie about their crime rate? Are you suggesting they don't care about their citizenry?

quote:

---

I suspect there's more to the earlier story than the charts show too

---

Well, of course you do. Your opinions have disintegrated on contact with reality, so reality must be a Grand Conspiracy to Suppress the Truth (C) and thus, your opinion gets to remain intact.The claim was that Sweden has had a rise in crime due to the influx of immigrants.The reality is that it isn't true. Despite a large increase in immigration to the point that more than 15% of the population is foreign born, crime hasn't increased. There have only been 87 murders total in 2014. As Sweden pointed out, more people were killed just in one city in Florida than in all of Sweden.And yet somehow, that's proof that Sweden is a hotbed of crime.

quote:

---

but the problem at issue at present is more recent.

---

Except it isn't.When did the Syrian Civil War start, Faith?

Faith writes:

quote:

---

I've already posted a lot of evidence on this thread that I trust.

---

And you've been shown why you shouldn't trust it.Why do you persist? Are you claiming that Sweden is lying about its crime rates? That they don't care about their citizens?

quote:

---

If your information agrees with it great, if not I trust what I've posted.

---

So despite the fact that Sweden cannot find any evidence of a crime wave, you're sure it's happening because you agree with someone who says there's a crime wave?Are you claiming that Sweden is lying about its crime rates? That they don't care about their citizens? That actually more people have been murdered than law enforcement has tracked?

quote:

---

Since what I posted clearly shows that the official information from Swedish leaders is not trustworthy

---

And there we have it. It's a Grand Conspiracy to Suppress the Truth (C). Sweden is actively trying to kill its citizens. It is lying about its crime rates because...well, we don't know why it would be lying about its crime rates, but we know that they are because you know better than Sweden does what happens in Sweden.

quote:

---

that they suppress the truth because of political correctness

---

Right...because even though we can't find any evidence of people being murdered by the hundreds in Sweden, it's only because they've suppressed it. The Grand Conspiracy to Suppress the Truth (C) is vast.

quote:

---

such as a couple of policemen, seem to be bullied into changing their minds, saying they don't want to appear racist

---

And exactly who are these people? You've had false information about everything else, Faith. You're going to have to be more specific.

quote:

---

I would find it difficult to trust anything on a Swedish news site.

---

Oh, that's right...the Grand Conspiracy to Suppress the Truth (C).

Faith writes:

quote:

---

Since the powers-that-be in Sweden have decided they have a vested interest in suppressing the facts

---

There's that Grand Conspiracy to Suppress the Truth (C) again.It would help if you could tell us what that "vested interest" is. Exactly why would Sweden want to lie to its citizens and put them at risk?Hint: "Political correctness" is not an answer. Remember, more than 15% of the population of Sweden is foreign born. Why would they want to deny the reality of crime in their country of residence? They don't care about their own lives? They are willing to be martyrs to "political correctness"?

quote:

---

If something is called "right wing" you automatically dismiss it without cause.

---

Incorrect.First, nothing is dismissed out of hand without cause.Second, right-wing sources tend to be more apt to falsify their statements in order to maintain the politically correct stance. But that doesn't mean all right-wing sources do so.Third, all sources you have put forward have been found to falsify their statements in order to maintain the politically correct stance. This leads you to making such statements that Sweden "has a vested interest in suppressing the facts"...while conveniently neglected to mention what that "vested interest" is.Thus, you show yourself to be the most politically correct of all.Reality doesn't care what you believe. The simple fact of the matter is that the crime rate in Sweden hasn't changed over the past dozen years despite the fact that Sweden has seen a massive uptick in immigration to the point that more than 15% of the population is foreign born.Oh, that's right...I forgot about the Grand Conspiracy to Suppress the Truth (C).

Faith writes:

quote:

---

The "right wing" seems to have a different set of statistics.'

---

No, they don't.Making up numbers out of thin air is not "statistics." Surely you have heard of the joke: 87% of statistics are made up.Question: Is that number a real statistical result or did I make it up?When we look at the numbers put forward by right-wing sources, we find that those numbers are quite literally made up. The sources they claim to produce those numbers either don't exist or say the opposite of what they claim. You've been burned by this before, Faith. How many more times do you need to be burned before you realize that Fox/Breitbart/Alex Jones/Stormfront/etc. are lying to you?

Faith writes:

quote:

---

Ah well, clearly the propaganda from the Swedish government that is strangled by political correctness is simply preferred by posters here.

---

But to what end? What possible benefit could Sweden have in lying to its citizens about crime?The very people you put forward as an example of this "political correctness" have called you a liar, Faith. So which is it? Were they lying when they talked to Horowitz or were they lying about how Horowitz portrayed them? And if they are liars, why are you using them as a source?

quote:

---

You think you're asking for evidence but the evidence has been posted.

---

And it has been found to be a tissue of lies. So why do you continue to rely upon it?

quote:

---

The propaganda is on the other side, the people who are afraid of the truth that their country is being destroyed by Muslim refugees.

---

Huh? There hasn't been a single incident of terrorism in the US by any refugee. And the crime statistics in Sweden show that crime rates haven't changed since 2005 despite the huge uptick in immigration to the point that more than 15% of the country is now foreign born.What is there to gain from falsifying the crime reports?

quote:

---

I posted the interview by Fox where the cops are interviewed saying it wasn't immigrants it was a high crime area

---

And those cops directly called it out as a lie. Shouldn't that tell you something about your trust in Fox as a source?

quote:

---

but the fact is that the high crime areas are where the immigrants live.

---

No, that isn't true. Remember, the crime rate in Sweden hasn't changed in the past dozen years and the cops you are referencing have called your statements to be lies. Why do you still refer to them?

quote:

---

Imagine that.

---

Indeed, imagine that: Someone who has had her own source call her a liar is still insisting upon her claims.

quote:

---

And one of the cops gave it away by saying they don't want to be considered racist. Imagine that. It's all there.

---

Yes, the direct statements by those policemen calling that a lie is there. Imagine that. They're calling you a liar and you still claim they support you.The amazing thing is that you don't want to know it.

Faith responds to me:

quote:

---

It's like the question of why so many here don't seem to object to illegal immigration

---

Huh? Who are these people?Names, Faith. If you're going to accuse people here to their face, have the common decency to name them.I get the feeling that you are confusing a stance that doesn't shout out that we should execute "illegal immigrants" on site and then "invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity" (a la Coulter) is some sort of statement saying that there are no such things as borders. You've already demonstrated that you engage in black-or-white, all-or-nothing thinking. This is likely another instance. Unable to consider the possibility that Obama has actually deported more people than any other president and that we have a net *negative* immigration from Mexico (yes...more Mexicans left the country than entered), you have bought the lie put to you by Fox/Breitbart/Stormfront that there is some sort of "crisis" regarding immigrants in the US.Be careful, Faith: Your racism is showing.

quote:

---

or accepting huge numbers of Muslim refugees.

---

Why not? There have been zero incidents of terrorism from any refugee we've taken in since 2000.More terrorism happens in the US at the hands of conservative, white, Christian males than from Muslim refugees. So why do you think the Muslims are the problem? Shouldn't we be stopping the conservatives? They're the ones most likely to engage in terrorism.But then again, Muslims are more accepting of gay people, more accepting of women, more accepting of abortion, more concerned about the environment, more concerned about the plight of the poor, more likely to support immigration to the US...just more likely to be liberal than Protestants, no wonder you're so upset.And before you start confusing the United States, for Saudi Arabia, let me remind you: Muslims who come to the US understand what they're getting into. They are leaving their home countries and coming to the US for precisely the reason that the way of life here is different from their home countries.It's why the crime rate for immigrants is half that of native-born citizens and why there hasn't been a single act of terrorism from any refugee we've taken in this century.They are fleeing the oppression of their home countries and you want to punish them for it.

quote:

---

There is of course the explanation of misplaced compassion.

---

In order for you to misplace your compassion, Faith, you need to demonstrate you have some and so far, you have only shown yourself to be cold and heartless, the exact opposite of the kind of person Jesus Christ told you to be. But then again, you aren't actually a Christian. You're a Pauline.

quote:

---

And there is the explanation of political correctness

---

Considering that you are the most politically correct person here, why don't you explain that to us.

quote:

---

it really does shut people up if they are called racist.

---

If you don't like being called out as a racist, then perhaps you should stop acting like one.Your right to free speech does not come with a right to be free from consequences of your speech or to be free from criticism and comment regarding your speech. And if you feel "intimidated"...or should I say, "scared"...about being considered a bigot because of your speech, then perhaps you should think about what you're going to say, where you're going to say, and to whom you are going to say before actually saying it. After all, if you truly believe it, if you think it is accurate, and if you think it needs to be acknowledged, then you shouldn't feel any shame for saying it.Are you a "snowflake" in need of a "safe space" lest you be "triggered" by being called a racist, Faith?If you don't like being called out as a racist, then perhaps you should stop acting like one.

quote:

---

We are very happy that Trump for one doesn't seem to be susceptible to that effect.

---

On the contrary, he's the most frightened child of all. Unable to simply ignore it, he displays his severe shame by tweeting the most infantile of whines regarding it.

quote:

---

Not sure but whatever he is he actually said it would be just fine if the refugees took over Sweden

---

No, he didn't. Stefan Lfven said no such thing. Once again, you were lied to, Faith.

quote:

---

So that's the answer to your question why they would lie about the crime statistics.

---

No, that's not an answer. That's simply a bunch of racist blather.What benefit is there to lying about your crime statistics...especially when they are making crime seem worse? Remember, Faith, the Swedish method of reporting rape makes it look like Stockholm is the rape capital of Europe. So if they're going to be falsifying the crime rates, shouldn't they be doing it to make it look better?So which is it, Faith? Are they lying about their crime rates and things are better than they are actually reporting them to be? Or is it possible that your faith in Fox/Breitbart/Stormfront is misplaced?Remember, Faith: Your own source is calling you a liar.And your other source has actually been found out to be a fraud, Faith. O'Reilly's guest, "Nils Bildt," is a fraud.How many times do you need to be burned before you consider the possibility that your sources are lying to you, Faith?

quote:

---

As I already said a couple of times I think it's quite clear that they were bullied out of their first admission that immigrants are the cause of the high crime wave.

---

So they're lying about people lying about them? Of course...I keep forgetting...the Grand Conspiracy to Suppress the Truth (C).So if I were to say that you admitted to me privately that you're thinking of some horrible crime and that your subsequent denials were you being bullied into your denial, that would be sufficient for the rest of us to think that you are, indeed, plotting some horrible crime? After all, Faith, you are the most politically correct of us all.

quote:

---

The "high crime areas" they are talking about in the Tucker Carlson interview that I posted in fact simply happen to be areas of high immigrqant population

---

Except the crime rates in Sweden haven't budged since 2005 despite the tremendous uptick in immigration to Sweden such that 15% of the population is foreign born.Your source is calling you a liar, Faith. They've been caught putting forward frauds as if they were real people. Why do you persist in using them?

quote:

---

Which when it gets published is an example of Fake News.

---

That's because it is. There is no such "high crime" area. If you feel otherwise, it is your burden of proof. A video of some nobody is not evidence.You need to start naming names, Faith. You need to start citing your sources. Which specific town is this "high crime" area? What are the specific crimes that have supposedly seen an increase in crime? Over what period?So far, everything you have put forward has been demonstrated to be a lie.

quote:

---

Also one of the cops clearly says they are worried about being called racist when asked about why the Swedish government would lie about the statistics.

---

But that wasn't the question they were asked. They are calling you a liar, Faith.

quote:

---

The most reasonable explanation is that they took a risk in telling the truth to Horowitz, then somehow somebody got to them.

---

How did you threaten them, Faith? I don't want to tell the others what you told me. You need to say it out loud here. You said you threatened them and thus, they changed their tune.What? I'm lying? You said no such thing?Then someone got to you.That's how pervasive the Grand Conspiracy to Suppress the Truth (C) is.

Faith responds to me:

quote:

---

I don't know his name but I saw the man on the video actually saying it.

---

No, you didn't.Hint: I'm pretty sure I know what you're talking about, but this is your burden of proof. Pretty much everything you have said regarding this is incorrect (wrong person, wrong quote, etc.) so, like Trump and his claim that he saw thousands of Muslims in New Jersey celebrating the 9/11 attacks, I'm calling you out.You didn't actually see what you claim to have seen. Oh, I don't deny that you saw something. But what you saw and what actually happened are not the same thing.Note, when I do a search for the specific quote given by the person (whose name I'm not going to tell you because that's your burden), I see a bunch of links to white supremacist sites like White Genocide Project and Stormfront. Now, I have some video, but it's in Swedish and I know you don't actually speak Swedish so you clearly didn't actually see the original video but instead got this claim from such a website.And they lied to you.Your racism is showing, Faith.

Faith responds to me:

quote:

---

you are right the narrator translated his Swedish so I didn't actually hear him say it.

---

That's because he didn't say it.

quote:

---

The usual nitpick that makes no real difference, just allows you to bully me.

---

You mean you lying about absolutely everything "makes no real difference"? How is it "bullying" you to point out that what you were told he said and what he actually said are not the same thing?I have the original video. I know precisely what it is that he said.You were lied to, Faith.You didn't answer my question:If Reagan talked about youth being "the future of this country," would that be an indication that he thought everybody over the age of 21 should be put to death a la Logan's Run?You probably don't understand why I'm asking this question, do you?

Faith responds to me:

quote:

---

The narrator translated the written version of what the man said. You can't possibly know anything different.

---

Faith, just because *you* don't know Swedish doesn't mean nobody else does.The finer point is that I have the entire statement made by...do you even know his name? Do you know who you're talking about?He didn't say what is claimed.You still haven't answered my question. Third time:If Ronald Reagan said that the country belongs to the young, would you interpret that to mean Reagan was saying everybody over the age of 21 should be killed a la Logan's Run?That is not a rhetorical question, Faith. I really want to know your answer to it.

Faith responds to me:

quote:

---

I don't see any reason to trust you over the Swedish-speaking narrator of that video, who was translating a written text of a speech given by the ex-prime minister. Perhaps you have a different speech in mind.

---

How about video of him actually saying it in full and complete context rather than going off the statement of a questionable source such as the one you provided?You did notice that Modulous posted the videos of him making the statement. I notice you still can't even bring yourself to use his name. Do you even know what it is? Do you know the name of the person you're talking about?I notice you didn't respond to Modulous...even though my post came after...quite literally the post directly after his.I have no doubt as to why you decided to respond to me rather than to him: Your source lied to you and you know it and thus you are actively avoiding any evidence that would contradict you.You still haven't answered my question. Fourth time:If Ronald Reagan said that the country belongs to the young, would you interpret that to mean Reagan was saying everybody over the age of 21 should be killed a la Logan's Run?That is not a rhetorical question, Faith. I really want to know your answer to it.

Percy writes:

quote:

---

quote:

---

The president has yet to propose major legislation to achieve his goals, with members of his cabinet and senior staff members divided over key elements of tax and health plans, and congressional Republicans split on how to structure them. By this point in his presidency, Mr. Obama had established an active if not always friendly working relationship with a Democratic Congress, having signed into law a $787 billion package of spending and tax cuts intended to stabilize the economy.

---

This is a clearly biased paragraph that goes well beyond factual reporting to make comparisons with the previous president who faced far more urgent economic problems than those faced today and so had to move rapidly.

---

Your analysis is only partially true and therefore misleading. This is partly because the original article is being misleading about the state of Congress at the time: "Democratic Congress" is only partially accurate. Indeed, both the House and the Senate were majority-Democrat at the time, but the Senate Republicans had established an obstructionist policy that was literally declared on the day of Obama's inauguration: Thus, any action was going to require a busting of Republican filibusters as the Democrats did not have a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate until the summer (Al Franken)...and then were only able to keep it for a few months (Ted Kennedy).And while the economic policies at the time were partially managed by Bush and inherited by Obama who implemented them (along with his own actions), you are missing the point: Obama's cabinet and senior staff were on board whereas Trump still can't get his cabinet and staff together.And you are also neglecting the fact that the Republicans in general and Trump in particular have declared that repeal of the Affordable Care Act is the most important thing the country has ever seen: Ben Carson, put forward to be head of HUD, called Obamacare the worst thing "since slavery." Now that both houses of Congress are in Republican hands, surely they should be able to do what they were unable to do the previous 50+ times when Obama was in the White House.So no, this paragraph isn't really biased. It is a bit incomplete, but its basic premise is sound.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Nor did Mr. Trump criticize one of his favorite foils, the fake news media.

---

This seems an unnecessary jab at a time when the president has just taken a very positive step toward a more traditional and presidential style.

---

BWAHAHAHAHA!That's rich, Percy. That's just precious.The fact that Trump did not take off his shoe and pound the podium does not mean he "has just taken a very positive step toward a more traditional and presidential style."On the contrary, his speech was just a rewarmed campaign speech that he didn't write and merely read. You can see this in his treatment of Carryn Owens and also of Ryan Owens: Notice that he was following the script regarding his address of Carryn......and then milked the applause......and then went off script to make it all about him by commenting about the "record" applause. It's all about ratings and being number one and the "best." As soon as he goes off script, he returns to his old habits of being the con man he is known for being.How is that "presidential"?And as for Ryan, have you forgotten that he still cannot take responsibility for the mission that led to his death? "THEY [meaning the generals] lost Ryan." Not "we." Reagan took responsibility for his failed operations in Beirut. Bush I, Clinton, Bush II, Obama, they all took responsibility.Trump can't do it.How is that "presidential"?Did you forget that he said he was going to put out a hit list for immigrants? You didn't really think that his "Victims of Immigrant Crime Engagement office" was anything less than a dog whistle to those who already think that immigrants are literally coming for them to kill them in the night (ahem....Faith....)How is that "presidential"?Oh...and the official count: 51 lies in 61 minutes.How is that "presidential"?As a White House official put it, it was "nationalism with an indoor voice." Do not confuse the fact that he wasn't standing in front of a bunch of screaming fans at a rally while wearing a ridiculous red hat with "traditional and presidential."

Faith writes:

quote:

---

Headlines I'm talking about misrepresent facts I happen to know about

---

Such as? You are so often wrong about these "facts you happen to know about," that we cannot take your word for it. For example, you were wrong about the statement of the ex-prime minister of Sweden (you still don't know his name, do you?)Examples, Faith. You need to learn to be specific.

quote:

---

or put accounts into pejorative language

---

As Miss Manners put it: Outrageous behaviour requires an outrageous response.When you catch someone taking a dump in the punch bowl, they are not the aggrieved party when it gets pointed out. The headline is not merely, "Disturbance at Gathering." Your definition of "pejorative language" seems to be simply accurate descriptions that you don't like because they reveal the monstrosity of your position.

quote:

---

or focus on somebody's negative opinion of something Trump said or did instead of just describing what he said or did.

---

It's called "analysis," Faith, and it is a necessary part of journalism. Reportage is more than mere stenography. It is not enough to simply say, for example, that the Republicans are putting forward a new healthcare system. It is not "focusing on somebody's negative opinion" to point out that the new system will result in millions of people losing their health insurance compared to what exists now and that there will be no system to control costs.

Faith writes:

quote:

---

His ""tumultuous" presidency has had nothing to do with him, it's all about leftist reaction to him

---

His first national security advisor forced to resign in less than a month, his replacement tells him to take the job and shove it, his nominees for both Secretary of the Army and Secretary of the Navy withdraw, his Education Secretary had to be confirmed by the Vice President, and his nominee for Secretary of Labor failed.His administration has more leaks than a sieve...to the point that Spicer held a meeting about what they were going to do to stop the leaks...which was promptly leaked.Officials at the State Department and CIA resign.Exactly what is your definition of "tumultuous," Faith, and how is it the "leftist reaction" that causes it?

quote:

---

the threats to kill him

---

Names or it didn't happen, Faith.Hint: Exactly how many death threats did Obama have? Why was his transition so much more smooth considering that he had so much more antagonism against him personally?

quote:

---

His "chaotic immigration ban was not chaotic

---

Exactly how is not discussing it with the relevant parties, not talking over the policy with any of the other branches of government or departments who would have to carry it out, and the outright defiance of court orders "not chaotic"? Exactly what is your definition of "chaotic"?

quote:

---

his supporters had no problem with it and we still don't.

---

Here's a hint, Faith: There are more people in the world than his supporters. That you are happy with the chaos doesn't mean it isn't chaos. When the people and departments who have the task of carrying out the policies of the administration are unaware of what those policies are, that is what is known as "chaotic." When every court looks at it and blocks it, that is what is known as "tumultuous."Those words do not mean what you think they mean.

quote:

---

What on earth did Trump do except promise to deport criminals?

---

You mean you don't know? The order is not merely to "deport criminals." Instead, it is to deport anybody "charged."Note, that doesn't mean convicted. All it takes is for a cop to not like the color of your skin, manufacture a charge, and suddenly you're being deported for a crime you didn't actually commit.On top of that, you're ignoring that the current policy is already to deport criminals. It's why more people have been deported under Obama than under any other administration. So exactly why did Trump need to bother?

quote:

---

Cuomo's strange remark suggesting Trump might throw out his legal immigrant family, are either a failure of intelligence to the point of dementia, or a designed attempt to pretend he is a threat to legal immigrants.

---

You do realize that legal immigrants were deported after the fiasco with his Muslim ban, yes? At least 60 were coerced into giving up their visas and green cards. That you don't think this is the necessary result of Trump's policy indicates you have a failure of intelligence to the point of dementia or is a designed attempt to pretend there is no threat.

quote:

---

I don't know about "the concerns he's sparked in NATO"

---

If you don't know, what makes you think you have anything of any value to say on the subject?

quote:

---

but perhaps concerns should be sparked in NATO, perhaps Trump plans to do something good and right that concerns NATO?

---

Because everything that he has said about NATO (including withdrawing from it) has been horrendous and foolish. Why should now be any different considering that he has surrounded himself with advisers that counseled him to promote the horrendous and foolish statements?

quote:

---

you mean his mention of the chaos in Europe caused by the flooding in of millions of Muslim immigrants who are a big problem they don't want to admit

---

There's that Grand Conspiracy to Suppress the Truth (C) again. I take it Interpol is in on it, too, right? Because they don't agree with you.

quote:

---

that's Trump's fault for telling the truth about it.

---

Lies are "the truth"? What a strange definition you have of "truth."It does not mean what you think it means.

quote:

---

I'm not sure exactly what "confusion he's caused about health care"

---

If you don't know, what makes you think you have anything of any value to say on the subject?Here are a few questions you should consider: When is this going to happen? The talk is about "repeal now, replace later." OK...so you're a health insurer: What does that mean? All those people who have bought your policies over the past few years: What happens to them? And what is this replacement? After all, you want to keep those people as customers. How are you going to do that if you have no idea how we're going to transition from the ACA to whatever is coming next (which has yet to be defined)?Will pre-existing conditions still be covered? What about the people in the expanded Medicaid program? What about the drug program?This is the chaos that has been introduced into the health care market. Nobody knows what is going on.Once again, Faith, you prove that you literally don't have a clue what you're talking about. You just know that anybody who disagrees with you must be evil. The Grand Conspiracy continues.

Percy responds to me:

quote:

---

It's important to note that the original order applied to everyone from those seven countries, including those with green cards.

---

I think you're confusing the new policy regarding deportation of immigrants with the Muslim ban.That is, the new policy regarding how ICE officials will prioritize people for deportation applies to *everyone,* not just Muslims from the 7 (well...6 now, since Iraq is being taken off the list...which only goes to show that the ban isn't based off anything rational and provides a basis for challenge in court.)You're trying to find the fleck of gold in the mountain of excrement. This is the variation on the "Doesn't Kick Puppies" syndrome...that if only we can find the one good thing, that somehow negates all the rest of it. "Well, he can't be that bad...he doesn't kick puppies." Yes, the new order is "better" than what came before, but that doesn't make what was put forward a good thing. It still has the basic underlying premise that is going to send it to court which will likely not survive.Especially compared to the other actions he has taken.