[Kaitlyn S]

awm, on 2017-October-17, 14:19, said:

I'm still waiting for explanations of:

1. If this is all about the Supreme Court, where are the 5-4 decisions which would've destroyed our country if there was just one more liberal justice to swing the vote the other way? Are you afraid that the Court might rule that unlimited corporate political donations are not in fact protected by the first amendment? That the Court would restore the principles of the Voting Rights Act and allow minority votes to count as much as white votes? That maybe they'd put a ban on extreme political gerrymandering? Or maybe that they'd rule the 2nd amendment doesn't protect automatic weapons? Is there something I'm missing here?

Do you think that the Democratic base is any more swayed by advertising than the Republican base that voted in Trump? When the Democrats bus poor voters, do you think those poor voters are going to be influenced by the Republican advertising? And since when do minority votes count less? Last I heard, a white vote and a black vote and a Hispanic vote and a dead person's vote (always Democratic) all counted the same. Except where Black Panthers showed up at polling places.

I feared that one more liberal vote on the Supreme Court would be the first step towards "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need". Great in theory, but in practice, it robs people of ambition and makes us all dependent on Big Brother. Probably also a hop-skip-and a jump away from disallowing criticism of the government (read: FEDERAL government), a First Amendment right. Meaning that only liberal voices can be heard because conservative voices would be subversive and probably a criminal offense.

And, no, it's not the automatic weapons I'm worried about - it's all guns. I don't trust Hillary Clinton - I think she has the morals of a bridge player who uses foot signals. I really believe that she intended to sway our nation toward total government control. Contrast this with Obama who probably thought he was doing the right thing for the country.

With Hillary Clinton in charge, gerrymandering would not be an issue because I think the election process would be fundamentally changed to never allow a conservative to win again.

I'm sure nobody here agrees with me and it all sounds like conspiracy theory. However, I think it's very likely that a pretty large chunk of the people that put Donald Trump in office had the same fears that I did. Many of them thought that Trump was not a great choice but that Hillary Clinton would be a disaster for our country. Unless you like government control - then she's be pretty awesome.

awm, on 2017-October-17, 14:19, said:

2. Last I checked we needed Senate approval for a Supreme Court Justice anyway. With Republicans controlling the Senate (and their refusal to even debate the relatively moderate Merrick Garland) why do you think a President Hillary Clinton could even have put a liberal Justice on the Court?

Yes, but voters would get upset with Congress if they refuse one outlandish judge after another.

awm, on 2017-October-17, 14:19, said:

3. If it's not about the Supreme Court, why do you think Hillary Clinton would be any worse than Barack Obama or Bill Clinton? She had pretty similar policies (she was kinda running for Obama's third term). The economy (and the stock market) did pretty well in both Bill Clinton and Barack Obama presidencies, we didn't get involved in any new wars... I can understand if you don't agree with all their policies but it seems pretty far out there to say the last eight years were such a terrible disaster that four more would destroy the country?

As mentioned above, I think that her morals were far worse than those of Obama and that she would do whatever it took to get her total government control agenda done.

awm, on 2017-October-17, 14:19, said:

4. If you're somehow worried that Hillary is "in the pocket of Wall Street" or something like that, look how many Wall Street people Trump has appointed! He's basically handed over running the government to a bunch of rich CEOs and a few generals, with Goldman-Sachs alums all over the place. And he's very obviously using his office to make money for himself and his family. I'm not sure how Hillary could be worse than that.

That's not what I'm worried about. Wall Street was just her pawns to do what she really wanted, and I suspect that Wall Street would have been quite unhappy with the result.

awm, on 2017-October-17, 14:19, said:

5. Anyway, you have to admit that Trump is pretty erratic. He pulls us out of global agreements, says wacky things that make little sense, gets in twitter wars over all kinds of dumb stuff. He seems to enjoy antagonizing North Korea. Don't you think an experienced and steady hand on the foreign policy controls would make us a lot safer?

Yes. I disagree with a lot of what Donald Trump does. And yes, Hillary would make us "safer" if you don't mind living in George Orwell's Animal Farm.

[PassedOut]

Kaitlyn S, on 2017-October-18, 12:18, said:

Do you think that the Democratic base is any more swayed by advertising than the Republican base that voted in Trump? When the Democrats bus poor voters, do you think those poor voters are going to be influenced by the Republican advertising? And since when do minority votes count less? Last I heard, a white vote and a black vote and a Hispanic vote and a dead person's vote (always Democratic) all counted the same. Except where Black Panthers showed up at polling places.

I feared that one more liberal vote on the Supreme Court would be the first step towards "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need". Great in theory, but in practice, it robs people of ambition and makes us all dependent on Big Brother. Probably also a hop-skip-and a jump away from disallowing criticism of the government (read: FEDERAL government), a First Amendment right. Meaning that only liberal voices can be heard because conservative voices would be subversive and probably a criminal offense.

And, no, it's not the automatic weapons I'm worried about - it's all guns. I don't trust Hillary Clinton - I think she has the morals of a bridge player who uses foot signals. I really believe that she intended to sway our nation toward total government control. Contrast this with Obama who probably thought he was doing the right thing for the country.

With Hillary Clinton in charge, gerrymandering would not be an issue because I think the election process would be fundamentally changed to never allow a conservative to win again.

I'm sure nobody here agrees with me and it all sounds like conspiracy theory. However, I think it's very likely that a pretty large chunk of the people that put Donald Trump in office had the same fears that I did. Many of them thought that Trump was not a great choice but that Hillary Clinton would be a disaster for our country. Unless you like government control - then she's be pretty awesome.

Yes, but voters would get upset with Congress if they refuse one outlandish judge after another.

As mentioned above, I think that her morals were far worse than those of Obama and that she would do whatever it took to get her total government control agenda done.

That's not what I'm worried about. Wall Street was just her pawns to do what she really wanted, and I suspect that Wall Street would have been quite unhappy with the result.

Yes. I disagree with a lot of what Donald Trump does. And yes, Hillary would make us "safer" if you don't mind living in George Orwell's Animal Farm.

I understand that you think these things, but I just don't see why.

I'm not a liberal at all, and I've been a business owner most of my life. I believe in personal responsibility. I believe in the power of a free market. I voted for Kasich in the primary.

It might be that Hillary Clinton's morals are worse than Obama's, given that his are exemplary, but she was running against Trump, and Trump has no morals at all so far as I can see. I certainly see no evidence to suggest that Clinton had any intention of pushing the US into communism. In fact, the reason she was challenged from the left is because she's a centrist policy wonk who proposes incremental changes. And even if she had wanted to get complete control of the government, there would be no way for her to do it. She'd have been even less successful than Trump in getting her way on that with congress and the courts.

As a conservative, I believe in a strong defense, but not in attacking other countries. As a conservative, I believe in fiscal responsibility so that the government is in a position to run a deficit when the economy needs a boost, and to get back on track when the economy is strong. As a conservative, I believe in conserving our planet. As a conservative, I believe that the US should keep its word, and should work responsibly with other countries to reduce tensions around the world. On all of these key issues, Clinton would have done far better than Trump, in my opinion.

Now our president oozes irresponsibility from every pore, blusters his way around the world, betrays our allies, lies brazenly and repeatedly, and plans to balloon the deficit to benefit himself and his rich benefactors at the expense of our kids and grandchildren. Clinton would have been a lot more boring, for sure, but that's not always a bad thing.

[Elianna]

Kaitlyn S, on 2017-October-18, 12:18, said:

Probably also a hop-skip-and a jump away from disallowing criticism of the government (read: FEDERAL government), a First Amendment right.

Congratulations! You voted for the person who's actually doing this.

[hrothgar]

Kaitlyn,

With all due respect, I think that you would be well served if you stopped wasting time trying to explain / justify your existing belief systems and, instead, used this opportunity to do some elementary research into the nature of American politics

By which i mean stop using Fox or Breitbart as sources of information and spend a lot more time with (gasp) the mainstream media.

1. The New York Times and The Washington Post are the papers of record in the US. If you don't like these then I would recommend either The Atlantic or The Econmist
2. If you prefer television You cant do better than the PBs News Hour
⒊ If your like podscasts, Lawfare is quite good

Please note| I am steering away from actual left wing sites like Vox. Vox is quite good, but probably too much for you...

Spend a serious amount of time learning the basics (by which I mean six to twelve months) After which you can tell us what you "think".

[Kaitlyn S]

Elianna, on 2017-October-18, 16:34, said:

Congratulations! You voted for the person who's actually doing this.

You're right! To me, it appears that the only way I could have avoided this was to not vote (or at least not vote for one of the majors.)

Clearly I didn't expect him to do that. Of course, the decision between the two evils would have been a lot closer if I had expected it.

[Kaitlyn S]

hrothgar, on 2017-October-18, 16:55, said:

Kaitlyn,

With all due respect, I think that you would be well served if you stopped wasting time trying to explain / justify your existing belief systems and, instead, used this opportunity to do some elementary research into the nature of American politics

By which i mean stop using Fox or Breitbart as sources of information and spend a lot more time with (gasp) the mainstream media.

1. The New York Times and The Washington Post are the papers of record in the US. If you don't like these then I would recommend either The Atlantic or The Econmist
2. If you prefer television You cant do better than the PBs News Hour
⒊ If your like podscasts, Lawfare is quite good

Please note| I am steering away from actual left wing sites like Vox. Vox is quite good, but probably too much for you...

Spend a serious amount of time learning the basics (by which I mean six to twelve months) After which you can tell us what you "think".

This reminds me of something ironic and hilarious. While I realize that you probably had to try hard to be civil to me, the coincidence of your post makes me want to post this anyway.

A person was trying to explain to my normal circle of friends the value of safe spaces, sanctuary cities, reparations, and one of my friends says something very much like: "Why don't you stop reading all that fake news spewed like the media and pay attention to some real news and come back and tell us what you think after doing that." The thing that seems so ironic is that you and I could be in exactly the same circumstances depending on which group of people we are talking to, with both groups being mature, intelligent, and moral human beings.

[rmnka447]

hrothgar, on 2017-October-18, 16:55, said:

By which i mean stop using Fox or Breitbart as sources of information and spend a lot more time with (gasp) the mainstream media.

I can understand putting Breitbart out there as a very conservative, far out site. I wouldn't read it either.

Fox News does have a more conservative viewpoint, but in their news shows presents contributors from both sides of the political spectrum to discuss news stories. If you want to dismiss the "opinion" shows, such as Sean Hannity, I can understand that. Shepard Smith, I think, is especially good in the afternoon. Also, Special Report with Bret Baier offers a lot of insightful analysis albeit with a conservative slant. But there's no way that you should equate Fox News with Breitbart.

Quote

1. The New York Times and The Washington Post are the papers of record in the US. If you don't like these then I would recommend either The Atlantic or The Econmist

All these sources have a definite strong progressive/liberal bias. Most of their news or comments could be press releases from the DNC. If you want to present them as "mainstream", then I would counter by saying its only fair and proper to say Fox News is equally "mainstream" only with a conservative bias. The objectively neutral newspaper of any these days is US Today.

Quote

2. If you prefer television You cant do better than the PBs News Hour

I can't comment as I haven't watched PBS News in a long time. However, I have listened to our NPR station on a regular basis and yet to hear a single conservative guess or viewpoint ever aired. That's not public radio, it's propaganda radio when it blows off about half the population..

Quote

Please note| I am steering away from actual left wing sites like Vox. Vox is quite good, but probably too much for you...

Vox, Huffington Post, Mother Jones, and MSNBC are certainly the left wing equivalents of Breitbart.

Quote

Spend a serious amount of time learning the basics (by which I mean six to twelve months) After which you can tell us what you "think".

And how much time do you spend listening to the other side?

[awm]

If you listen to what Hillary Clinton proposed, her policy goals were pretty similar to Obama. Nowhere near communism!

Okay, maybe she was lying. But she was also First Lady for eight years, senator for eight years, Secretary of State for four years. That’s twenty years in the public eye during which she has consistently advocated for prett moderate policies that were also supported by her husband and Obama and other slightly left of center folks.

So this idea that she wants some sort of communist utopia just doesn’t make sense to me. She has a long record in both words and deeds and has never done anything to indicate that! And even if she DID want such a thing, a radical change like that would require consent from congress (which has Republican majorities in BOTH houses, and in addition the VAST majority of Democrats would never support something like that).

One thing you have to understand is that Democrats vote based on stated policies and track record. We are not a “cult of personality” the way Republicans seem to be. If a Democratic president suddenly changed her mind about advocating for background checks on guns and instead decided to ignore the 2nd amendment completely and take all guns away (to give one example) no way would John Manchin support that, nor Heidi Heitkamp, nor Bernie Sanders (who is actually kinda conservative on guns). You’d have a TON of defectors! Many more than Trump got when he tried a bait and switch with healthcare (originally promising something better for everyone and then endorsing the putrid bill Paul Ryan came up with).

And even if Hillary Clinton got some extreme left wing Supreme Court Justice (and with Republicans controlling the Senate I expect Merrick Garland or someone like him would be the best she’d get — more likely they’d just refuse to confirm ANY of her nominees), the Supreme Court isn’t some all powerful dictatorship. They rule on cases that are brought to them! No decision like the ones you propose has even come CLOSE on the court! You could put Karl Marx in the open seat (were he still living) and if the government tried to nationalize major companies or install a Clinton dictatorship the vote would be 8-1 against and 9-0 against (respectively). Really a Merrick Garland type (endorsed by Orrin Hatch as a moderate!) is nothing to fear.

As for Trump, if you listen to what he said during the campaign (Mexicans are rapists, the press is the enemy, we should pull out of all trade agreements, massive budget-busting tax proposal, bizarre praise for murderous dictators, we should ban all Muslims from the country, encouraging people to beat up protestors at his rallies, “grab em by the pussy” etc)... his actions in office almost exactly match what you’d expect from his campaign!

So you have one candidate PROMISING to be a reckless, racist, mysogenist asshole who hates free speech and loves dictators. You have another candidate who has been very moderate and responsible in twenty years of public service and claims she will do more of the same. Yet you fear the latter candidate has a “secret agenda”? That might be worse than the first candidates PUBLIC AGENDA? This just seems bizarre; where is the evidence?

[hrothgar]

rmnka447, on 2017-October-18, 23:22, said:

I can understand putting Breitbart out there as a very conservative, far out site. I wouldn't read it either.

Fox News does have a more conservative viewpoint, but in their news shows presents contributors from both sides of the political spectrum to discuss news stories. If you want to dismiss the "opinion" shows, such as Sean Hannity, I can understand that. Shepard Smith, I think, is especially good in the afternoon. Also, Special Report with Bret Baier offers a lot of insightful analysis albeit with a conservative slant. But there's no way that you should equate Fox News with Breitbart.



All these sources have a definite strong progressive/liberal bias. Most of their news or comments could be press releases from the DNC. If you want to present them as "mainstream", then I would counter by saying its only fair and proper to say Fox News is equally "mainstream" only with a conservative bias. The objectively neutral newspaper of any these days is US Today.


I can't comment as I haven't watched PBS News in a long time. However, I have listened to our NPR station on a regular basis and yet to hear a single conservative guess or viewpoint ever aired. That's not public radio, it's propaganda radio when it blows off about half the population..




Vox, Huffington Post, Mother Jones, and MSNBC are certainly the left wing equivalents of Breitbart.



And how much time do you spend listening to the other side?

Your post deserves a serious reply, which I am unwilling to attempt until I leave China and have access to a decent keyboard.

[Zelandakh]

awm, on 2017-October-19, 00:43, said:

As for Trump, if you listen to what he said during the campaign (Mexicans are rapists, the press is the enemy, we should pull out of all trade agreements, massive budget-busting tax proposal, bizarre praise for murderous dictators, we should ban all Muslims from the country, encouraging people to beat up protestors at his rallies, “grab em by the pussy” etc)... his actions in office almost exactly match what you’d expect from his campaign!

In short, they knew what they were signing up for. Seems fitting somehow...

[jjbrr]

rmnka447, on 2017-October-18, 23:22, said:

I can understand putting Breitbart out there as a very conservative, far out site. I wouldn't read it either.

Fox News does have a more conservative viewpoint, but in their news shows presents contributors from both sides of the political spectrum to discuss news stories. If you want to dismiss the "opinion" shows, such as Sean Hannity, I can understand that. Shepard Smith, I think, is especially good in the afternoon. Also, Special Report with Bret Baier offers a lot of insightful analysis albeit with a conservative slant. But there's no way that you should equate Fox News with Breitbart.



All these sources have a definite strong progressive/liberal bias. Most of their news or comments could be press releases from the DNC. If you want to present them as "mainstream", then I would counter by saying its only fair and proper to say Fox News is equally "mainstream" only with a conservative bias. The objectively neutral newspaper of any these days is US Today.


I can't comment as I haven't watched PBS News in a long time. However, I have listened to our NPR station on a regular basis and yet to hear a single conservative guess or viewpoint ever aired. That's not public radio, it's propaganda radio when it blows off about half the population..




Vox, Huffington Post, Mother Jones, and MSNBC are certainly the left wing equivalents of Breitbart.



And how much time do you spend listening to the other side?

rmnka, reality has a left-leaning bias. I know in your caveman brain, you see LEFT BAD RIGHT GOOD, but you need to try to change how you think. I'd obviously never advocate vox or huff po or mother jones or vice or other publications with an agenda, but legitimate, honest news sources like NYT and WaPo try to demonstrate good journalism assuming you know the difference between opinion and fact. Try to step out of your echo chamber safe-space and join us in reality. It'll be scary at first, but you'll quickly get desensitized to all the horsecrap this administration is slinging. Good luck!

[andrei]

jjbrr, on 2017-October-19, 07:45, said:

rmnka, reality has a left-leaning bias.
...
legitimate, honest news sources like NYT and WaPo try to demonstrate good journalism

LOL, no wonder

[jjbrr]

yes?

[Zelandakh]

andrei, on 2017-October-19, 08:45, said:

LOL, no wonder

I find it amusing that you use an early example of fake news (about two thirds of the way down) as your signature. Is it meant as irony or just a typical lack of interest in the truth?

[barmar]

jjbrr, on 2017-October-19, 07:45, said:

rmnka, reality has a left-leaning bias.

Exactly. Just look at the direction that western society has been moving over the centuries, from frequent violence and warfare to peace, from fear of different people (races, sexual preferences, disabilities) to tolerance and acceptance, etc. These are all considered to be progress, and progressive = left. One of the biggest problems we have with Muslim theocracies is that they seem backward in many of these ways, they're often described as "stuck in the Middle Ages".

The right wing yearns for a past that was never actually as nice as they think, except for the privileged few. If you were a heterosexual, middle-class white man in the 50's, life was wonderful. But try being a black man, woman, gay man, etc. Of course, that's why the archetype of a Republican is Archie Bunker, while the image of a Democrat is Mike and Gloria Stivik.

[diana_eva]

awm, on 2017-October-19, 00:43, said:

...

So you have one candidate PROMISING to be a reckless, racist, mysogenist asshole who hates free speech and loves dictators. You have another candidate who has been very moderate and responsible in twenty years of public service and claims she will do more of the same. Yet you fear the latter candidate has a "secret agenda"? That might be worse than the first candidates PUBLIC AGENDA? This just seems bizarre; where is the evidence?

This is too nuanced and too long. Try short catchy phrases:

Whites suffered and were oppressed for 8 years under Obama
Hillary created ISIS
Blacks, rapist mexicans, extremist muslims are taking over the country
Minorities are privileged, whites are discriminated
Obama passed a health care bill all by himself, like a communist dictator

Now look at the campaign promises.
Hillary had a 40 page long list of things she'll do with details on how she plans to do them. Who can even read that, it's all communist stuff anyway
Trump had 7 pages under the form
- I'll build a big wall
- I'll kill obamacare and replace it with something great
- we'll make america great again

Now that's simple, easy to grasp, and fixes everything that was wrong for so long.

Not even getting into the more extreme stuff like "Hillary was killing children while her husband was raping them and nobody did anything to stop them", let's assume for the sake of sanity that only a small minority believed that.

[jjbrr]

Who can blame them after the ATROCITIES that awful black man did while he was in office?

Asking for dijon mustard

Wearing the tan suit

The “Muslim prayer curtain”

Holding a coffee cup

Umbrella-gate

The “terrorist fist bump"

Michelle's bare arms

Michelle's "water is good" stance

"Bowing"

Bowing to a robot (this deserves its own entry)

Putting his feet on the desk

Inviting a rapper to the WH

The horrible, horrible paperclip

Moving a Churchill bust

Playing golf, ever

Elitist arugula

Not wearing a flag pin

"Executing" a fly in the Oval Office

Eating "black power" ice cream

Living within vague proximity of Islamic center

[Winstonm]

rmnka447, on 2017-October-18, 23:22, said:

I can understand putting Breitbart out there as a very conservative, far out site. I wouldn't read it either.

Fox News does have a more conservative viewpoint, but in their news shows presents contributors from both sides of the political spectrum to discuss news stories. If you want to dismiss the "opinion" shows, such as Sean Hannity, I can understand that. Shepard Smith, I think, is especially good in the afternoon. Also, Special Report with Bret Baier offers a lot of insightful analysis albeit with a conservative slant. But there's no way that you should equate Fox News with Breitbart.



All these sources have a definite strong progressive/liberal bias. Most of their news or comments could be press releases from the DNC. If you want to present them as "mainstream", then I would counter by saying its only fair and proper to say Fox News is equally "mainstream" only with a conservative bias. The objectively neutral newspaper of any these days is US Today.


I can't comment as I haven't watched PBS News in a long time. However, I have listened to our NPR station on a regular basis and yet to hear a single conservative guess or viewpoint ever aired. That's not public radio, it's propaganda radio when it blows off about half the population..




Vox, Huffington Post, Mother Jones, and MSNBC are certainly the left wing equivalents of Breitbart.



And how much time do you spend listening to the other side?

Here is the reason I don't listen or watch Fox News: they don't do their basic homework to find out simple information.

[Winstonm]

This is quite a story and is sourced twice: The Daily Beast and Buzzfeed:

https://www.buzzfeed...wmoM#.ie7YEqXjv

https://www.thedaily...re-the-election

Quote

A popular, divisive Twitter account, purporting to be the work of Tennessee Republicans but allegedly the creation of Russian trolls to sow division in the US, was repeatedly cited in multiple articles by many prominent US news sites.

The Tennessee Republican Party flagged the account, @TEN_GOP, to Twitter, saying it was a fake, but it wasn't until 11 months after the first notification that the social media company "permanently suspended" the account.

By then, however, the site's inflammatory tweets had reached not only its more than 136,000 followers, but thousands of other people through retweets and references by some of the most prominent sites and personalities on the internet. They included BuzzFeed News, which mentioned the site's tweets in posts debunking some of the site's claims.

For those who question The Daily Beast's legitimacy, I get it. They have a liberal slant.
Here is what the site: media bias/fact checker says about The Daily Beast:

Quote

These media sources are moderately to strongly biased toward liberal causes through story selection and/or political affiliation. They may utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports and omit reporting of information that may damage liberal causes. Some sources in this category may be untrustworthy. See all Left Bias sources.

Factual Reporting: HIGH

Here is Buzzfeed:

Quote

These media sources have a slight to moderate liberal bias. They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes) to favor liberal causes. These sources are generally trustworthy for information, but may require further investigation. See all Left-Center sources.

Factual Reporting: MIXED
So what I do with this type of source is acknowledge their facts but reserve skepticism for their conclusions.

[Winstonm]

Could it be that Trump's travel ban was a contributing factor in the deaths of 4 U.S. soldiers in Niger?

Quote

An African country included in Trump’s revised "Muslim ban" has pulled out of the US-backed fight against Boko Haram militants.

Less than a month after Trump placed travel restrictions on citizens from Chad entering the US, the country has pulled hundreds of troops from neighbouring Niger where they were helping local forces fight jihadists.

Chad’s government has not given any reason for the withdrawal of troops but it comes weeks after they warned the US travel restriction could affect their security commitments, including their involvement in the fight against the Islamist militant group.

In a statement following the introduction of the revised ban in September, Chad’s communications minister Madeleine Alingue said it “seriously undermines Chad’s image and the good relations between the two countries, notably in the fight against terrorism,” according to Newsweek.

Residents warned they had already seen an impact from the withdrawal over the past two-weeks with a number of attacks being carried out by the militants in Niger’s Diffa region.

Diffa parliamentarian Lamido Moumouni said residents had started complaining.

“They have come to rely on the forces so there is a perception that security will be lacking,” he said.

In September Trump expanded the list of countries covered by his original travel ban to include restrictions on citizens from Chad, North Korea, and Venezuela.

The initial ban, established under Executive Order in January, stopped all refugee admissions and temporarily barred people from seven Muslim-majority countries, leading it to be criticised for targeting Muslims and dubbed the “Muslim ban”.

Fighting between Chad’s armed forces and Boko Haram dates back to 2015 and during the peak of the conflict Chad had 2,000 troops stationed in Niger to counter the militant group.

http://www.independe...000451.html?amp