OftenWrong

We are reaching a point where people no longer WANT to listen to reason. I don't know why things are heading that way, but it wasn't always like this. I suspect part of the reason is excessive hyperbole and a refusal by "authorities" on both left and right to be reasonable and find common ground. People don't know what to believe anymore, so they just stop listening. Some start throwing punches.

USA should have not used the bomb and waited 6 months, so that they could be bombed by the Russians.

When ceaseless yapping gets you nowhere, violence is a form of communication. People are tired of all the talk these days. Information fatigue. Now what?

"Hijacked" is a bit of a strong word. Utilized, more like it.

There's no system that works effectively for all time. Things change, and our politics/ economics must change with them to keep up. Smart people learn to change accordingly.

Allow me to help the reader then:

There's lots of situations where it should not be. One should differentiate between "sharing power" and "controlling power".

Treason? Based on what exactly. So you haven't seen real evidence of whatever it is. Because Trump

It depends on how much you think power needs to be shared. In my view no system can be completely fair, and in some cases a certain "unfairness" is necessary.

Not necessarily. I was responding to the post directed at me that somehow brought Indonesia into the discussion, as a comparator for how our criminal justice system works. Drawing that comparison made no sense to me, and I didn't want to get into that. Why don't you go after that guy. Or, if you have a useful observation about it, please share. My seemingly flippant comment was to indicate that Indonesia is a predominantly Muslim country, so punishments such as hacking off limbs/ body parts are not uncommon. IE. they did it to themselves. What Indonesia and communism has to do with what I said above, I don't know.

Indonesia is a Muslim country, friend.

I'm appalled at the way the Dems and the media are behaving actually. Trump may have made some gaffs but they're fairly minor in the grand scheme of things. His enemies are focused solely on humiliating him at all costs, and some of the things they go on about are quite unimportant and stupid.

It's hard to get past the opening sentence- "Iran, one of the states targeted by Donald Trump’s Muslim ban..." Since it clearly is NOT a Muslim ban, because Muslims from all other countries are not affected. When I read things like this it already sets a questionable tone. Leftist rhetoric. The article intends to portray the Ayatollah and government of Iran in a favourable light. It's great that they helped to harbor the refugees, for 40 years. Upon closer examination some 500,000 Afghan refugee children do not go to school. My question is why they didn't give them access to schools. I found the following information- Human Rights Watch report that many undocumented Afghan children face bureaucratic obstacles that prevent their children from attending school, in violation of international law. Furthermore- Iranian law limits Afghans who have permission as refugees to work to a limited number of dangerous and poorly paid manual labor jobs, regardless of their education and skills. The Iranian government has also failed to take necessary steps to protect its Afghan population from physical violence linked to rising anti-foreigner sentiment in Iran, or to hold those responsible accountable. Afghans in Iran Sorry it's not all about peace and love.

Well, last I heard landed immigrants can be deported under the law if they commit certain crimes. How a criminal conviction can lead to deportation Even if not deported, they might not be permitted to become citizens after committing certain offences (presumably felonies), leaving the door open for deportation in event of future crimes.

I don't think I argued they cannot assimilate. I generally argue they must assimilate. The reasons for the travel ban were made clear since day one when the first attempted ban came out. At that time I recall I read the White House Executive Order which was published on their web site, which gave the exact reasons. I posted a link to it here. The media reported that President Obama had already identified 7 countries on a list whose citizens could not be properly vetted, but this information was hard to find above the screaming from leftists. Reasons given include countries where there is no reliable form of government in control, hence the information received is not up to standards. In other cases (Iran), because the government is openly hostile to the USA. Their information cannot be trusted. It's unfortunate for the people of Iran that they are caught in the middle of a conflict, but their own government has sworn to be the enemy of the United States. I cannot see any other fair option. As for the well-educated good people of Iran, I feel for them but that does little. The proposed ban is only temporary, I believe it was set for 90 days. I did not read the second executive order.

The discussion wandered to cover many things, including the stark cultural differences between Canada and Iran. That is why those comments came up. But to answer the basic question on the US travel ban has nothing to do with those things. Other countries who have similar culture as Iran are not being banned. There is no reason to ban countries who are cooperating with/ good allies of the United States. Iran is not. Is it reasonable to insist that people be allowed to enter a country when their security information is not up to acceptable standards? Of course not. Besides that, no one is entitled to enter a foreign country, by any means. When it comes to providing security information, one must either put up or shut up. Personally any Iranians I have met were quite normal people. A little touchy, perhaps too easily offended. Are we... Persian?

It already has been discussed. The travel ban is put in place for reasons you seem to ignore. It has not to do with the behaviour of individuals who are already living here. It has to do with the quality of security information coming from the countries in question. Thanks to the uncooperative government of Iran, and lack of proper security infrastructure in primitive tribal nations where there practically is no government to rely on, those people should not be allowed. If Iranians do not like it, they need to fix their problems back home. It is that simple... do you have any more questions?

I thought they want guys like firemen.

Hacking off body parts is permanent. We do not do such things in the west if a person is found guilty of a crime like theft. They get a criminal record, yes, and depending on the crime it often stays with them for the rest of their life. The method of dealing with criminals in the west is to try and rehabilitate the person. That means teach them to renounce their criminal behaviour and return to society as a functional person. Having both hands and both feet still available, they are able to work and support themselves, and their family if they have one. People make mistakes (crimes...) but can learn to repent. They can also be forgiven.

No one is arguing from the basis of skin colour. One should learn to read carefully, think, and discuss without getting emotional.

What would happen to them? Would other countries be obligated to take them in if Canada deports these "ex-citizens"? No. Debating this seems like a moot point.

No the British Royal Family was behind it. They are actually shape-shifting Reptilians.

Seems to me it does, if her job is to protect the life of the president.