Re: So, what happens if other countries start banning christians, hindus, Buddhists, etc. Or, if they start banning Americans, or Germans, or Italians?

by **Robert J Sakimano** 2017-01-31, 11:50

Dendrobates wrote:
I.B. Fine wrote:
While I don't totally disagree, Trump's list of the 7 terrorist countries came from the Obama administration.

He created it because there was a specific threat. Another big difference, which also goes with Trumps own personal agenda. Obama had 2 specific people who were sending bomb supplies and weapons to Al-Quaida from the US. They were arrested by the FBI and an investigation had to pursue to address this specific threat. The US needed to reasses their vetting process , which is a fine legitimate concern. The other difference that Obamas order put a pause on the refugee process while they investigated it. Trumps order blocks all entries that are non-US visitors. In obamas order, there were still Iraqi referees that came in during that time, it was just a more vetted process.

There is no specific threat with trumps order, and it's adding fuel to ISIS to show them....see, they hate your religion and hate you." It's building more examples to Brian wash further jihadists.

Yep - Trump is now the VP in charge of recruiting for ISIS

by **I.B. Fine** 2017-01-31, 11:50

Dendrobates wrote:
I.B. Fine wrote:
While I don't totally disagree, Trump's list of the 7 terrorist countries came from the Obama administration.

He created it because there was a specific threat. Another big difference, which also goes with Trumps own personal agenda. Obama had 2 specific people who were sending bomb supplies and weapons to Al-Quaida from the US. They were arrested by the FBI and an investigation had to pursue to address this specific threat. The US needed to reasses their vetting process , which is a fine legitimate concern. The other difference that Obamas order put a pause on the refugee process while they investigated it. Trumps order blocks all entries that are non-US visitors. In obamas order, there were still Iraqi referees that came in during that time, it was just a more vetted process.

There is no specific threat with trumps order, and it's adding fuel to ISIS to show them....see, they hate your religion and hate you." It's building more examples to Brian wash further jihadists.

There is room to debate the intent of the order, the execution of it was dreadful. They should have been ready to deal with a myriad of reasonable exceptions rather than the chaos that we've seen.

by **Dendrobates** 2017-01-31, 12:00

I.B. Fine wrote:
Dendrobates wrote:

He created it because there was a specific threat. Another big difference, which also goes with Trumps own personal agenda. Obama had 2 specific people who were sending bomb supplies and weapons to Al-Quaida from the US. They were arrested by the FBI and an investigation had to pursue to address this specific threat. The US needed to reasses their vetting process , which is a fine legitimate concern. The other difference that Obamas order put a pause on the refugee process while they investigated it. Trumps order blocks all entries that are non-US visitors. In obamas order, there were still Iraqi referees that came in during that time, it was just a more vetted process.

There is no specific threat with trumps order, and it's adding fuel to ISIS to show them....see, they hate your religion and hate you." It's building more examples to Brian wash further jihadists.
There is room to debate the intent of the order, the execution of it was dreadful. They should have been ready to deal with a myriad of reasonable exceptions rather than the chaos that we've seen.

Which isn't surprising because Trump doesn't know how pass anything except by executive order. He's not thinking about all the issues with his orders, which requires time and thought. But now, anyone that disagrees with him is fired. Makes sense.

What I don't understand is why aren't conservatives throwing an uproar with Trump not banning the actual countries that performed terrorist actions? We all know it's because he has money involved. How is that not upsetting?

by Guest 2017-01-31, 12:06

Dendrobates wrote:What I don't understand is why aren't conservatives throwing an uproar with Trump not banning the actual countries that performed terrorist actions? We all know it's because he has money involved. How is that not upsetting?

Because it's not true?

by **xsanguine** 2017-01-31, 12:24

DWags wrote:
LooseGoose wrote:

Show me ONE lecture about this. From me. You can't. You're straight up making it up

So goose, should we have additional funding for mothers who choose to have the baby to help them raise the child?

Another way to ask that is... should we force people to pay for another individual's personal choice against their will?

by **I.B. Fine** 2017-01-31, 12:50

xsanguine wrote:
DWags wrote:

So goose, should we have additional funding for mothers who choose to have the baby to help them raise the child?

Another way to ask that is... should we force people to pay for another individual's personal choice against their will?

What's wrong with adoption?

by **GRR Spartan** 2017-01-31, 12:51

Lets just ban all folks who don't indentify themselves as Christians.

by **I.B. Fine** 2017-01-31, 12:55

Dendrobates wrote:
I.B. Fine wrote:
There is room to debate the intent of the order, the execution of it was dreadful. They should have been ready to deal with a myriad of reasonable exceptions rather than the chaos that we've seen.

Which isn't surprising because Trump doesn't know how pass anything except by executive order. He's not thinking about all the issues with his orders, which requires time and thought. But now, anyone that disagrees with him is fired. Makes sense.

What I don't understand is why aren't conservatives throwing an uproar with Trump not banning the actual countries that performed terrorist actions? We all know it's because he has money involved. How is that not upsetting?

To be fair, they seem to have reacted quickly and be mostly caught up. Trump is used to delegating orders and having his hand picked people carry them out. Most of his hand picked people are still waiting for the Democrats in the Senate to show up and vote on approval.
No excuse for the delay in confirmations.

by **I.B. Fine** 2017-01-31, 12:57

GRR Spartan wrote:Lets just ban all folks who don't indentify themselves as Christians.

So, what happens if other countries start banning christians, hindus, Buddhists, etc. Or, if they start banning Americans, or Germans, or Italians? - Page 3 AvHnbUZ

by **xsanguine** 2017-01-31, 13:07

GRR Spartan wrote:Lets just ban all folks who don't indentify themselves as Christians.

Why? We aren't banning any particular religion and we aren't even banning, period. You guys have let social justice types take over your media and now you're fed this shit.

by **I.B. Fine** 2017-01-31, 13:10

xsanguine wrote:
GRR Spartan wrote:Lets just ban all folks who don't indentify themselves as Christians.

Why? We aren't banning any particular religion and we aren't even banning, period. You guys have let social justice types take over your media and now you're fed this shit.

If he likes to be fed shit, who are we to deny him that opportunity?
Bigot
Wink

by **xsanguine** 2017-01-31, 13:14

I.B. Fine wrote:
xsanguine wrote:

Why? We aren't banning any particular religion and we aren't even banning, period. You guys have let social justice types take over your media and now you're fed this shit.
If he likes to be fed shit, who are we to deny him that opportunity?
Bigot

It's a crazy world we're in.

Trump definitely has a lot of people nervous (me included), but you can't find refuge (heh) in the arms of his opposition because they are exaggerating and literally making things up.

At least we get to "vote" again in 4 years.

by CheesySpartan 2017-01-31, 13:16

xsanguine wrote:
I.B. Fine wrote:
If he likes to be fed shit, who are we to deny him that opportunity?
Bigot

It's a crazy world we're in.

Trump definitely has a lot of people nervous (me included), but you can't find refuge (heh) in the arms of his opposition because they are exaggerating and literally making things up.

At least we get to "vote" again in 4 years.

Mid-terms in 2 years for 10 senate seats

by **xsanguine** 2017-01-31, 13:20

Score!

by **xsanguine** 2017-01-31, 13:23

It's probably a natural position when your political opposition holds the white house. But a little perspective and skepticism can help see things as they really are. There is a difference between not trusting a politician and losing your goddamned mind every time they do anything and blowing it completely into absurdity. I mean shit he can do way more damage by doing something minor but inflammatory and while the liberals are burning cars in the streets and wailing and gnashing their teeth about how stupid Trump is, the Republicans are tinkering with tax codes. Nobody will even notice.

by **xsanguine** 2017-01-31, 13:24

I think that the media and the left are doing a real disservice to the country in general right now by blowing up everything Trump does into hysterical hyperbole. It makes it so much harder to actually analyze what is really going on and determine what is actually fucked up and what is not. Acting like a temporary ban on visa travel from 7 countries is some white supremacist hate crime is just making things worse.

by **NigelUno** 2017-01-31, 13:31

xsanguine wrote:
I.B. Fine wrote:
If he likes to be fed shit, who are we to deny him that opportunity?
Bigot

It's a crazy world we're in.

Trump definitely has a lot of people nervous (me included), but you can't find refuge (heh) in the arms of his opposition because they are exaggerating and literally making things up.

At least we get to "vote" again in 4 years.

by **Robert J Sakimano** 2017-01-31, 13:32

NigelUno wrote:
xsanguine wrote:

It's a crazy world we're in.

Trump definitely has a lot of people nervous (me included), but you can't find refuge (heh) in the arms of his opposition because they are exaggerating and literally making things up.

At least we get to "vote" again in 4 years.

by **xsanguine** 2017-01-31, 13:53

NigelUno wrote:
xsanguine wrote:

It's a crazy world we're in.

Trump definitely has a lot of people nervous (me included), but you can't find refuge (heh) in the arms of his opposition because they are exaggerating and literally making things up.

At least we get to "vote" again in 4 years.

He's can't run in 4 years, Nigel.

by Guest 2017-01-31, 17:59

Golly - you wouldn't know it from the lemming chorus in here:

Matt PearceVerified account ‏@mattdpearce
49% of Americans agree with Trump's travel ban, 41% disagree - Reuters/Ipsos poll

And the biased media all in one.....they had to change that headline to make it divisive.
So, what happens if other countries start banning christians, hindus, Buddhists, etc. Or, if they start banning Americans, or Germans, or Italians? - Page 3 C3h7iEpVYAEG_-i

by **Watch Out Pylon!** 2017-01-31, 18:15

LooseGoose wrote:Golly - you wouldn't know it from the lemming chorus in here:

Matt PearceVerified account ‏@mattdpearce
49% of Americans agree with Trump's travel ban, 41% disagree - Reuters/Ipsos poll

And the biased media all in one.....they had to change that headline to make it divisive.

So the same minority of people that voted for Trump agrees with what he did? Mind blowing stuff.

by Guest 2017-01-31, 18:47

Watch Out Pylon! wrote:
LooseGoose wrote:Golly - you wouldn't know it from the lemming chorus in here:

And the biased media all in one.....they had to change that headline to make it divisive.

So the same minority of people that voted for Trump agrees with what he did? Mind blowing stuff.

I said compared to in here. Based on that you'd think it was 85-15 against. But then again why bother to read what I write when you can jump to conclusions?

by **Cameron** 2017-01-31, 19:24

LooseGoose wrote:
Dendrobates wrote:What I don't understand is why aren't conservatives throwing an uproar with Trump not banning the actual countries that performed terrorist actions? We all know it's because he has money involved. How is that not upsetting?

Because it's not true?

To clarify, which part isn't true? Is it untrue that the actual countries that performed terrorist actions aren't banned? Or is it untrue that he has money involved? All of the above?

by Guest 2017-01-31, 19:37

Cameron wrote:
LooseGoose wrote:

Because it's not true?

To clarify, which part isn't true? Is it untrue that the actual countries that performed terrorist actions aren't banned? Or is it untrue that he has money involved? All of the above?

Dendro wrote: Trump not banning the actual countries that performed terrorist actions? We all know it's because he has money involved. How is that not upsetting?

Highlighted the part I'm disputing. That the list was developed based on Trump's investments. It's been pretty well established that the list was built by the Obama administration and the Trump people simply used their work to move forward.

by **DWags** 2017-01-31, 20:01

LooseGoose wrote:
Cameron wrote:

To clarify, which part isn't true? Is it untrue that the actual countries that performed terrorist actions aren't banned? Or is it untrue that he has money involved? All of the above?

Dendro wrote: Trump not banning the actual countries that performed terrorist actions? We all know it's because he has money involved. How is that not upsetting?

Highlighted the part I'm disputing. That the list was developed based on Trump's investments. It's been pretty well established that the list was built by the Obama administration and the Trump people simply used their work to move forward.

OBAMA! It's his fault!!

by Guest 2017-01-31, 20:13

DWags wrote:
LooseGoose wrote:

Highlighted the part I'm disputing. That the list was developed based on Trump's investments. It's been pretty well established that the list was built by the Obama administration and the Trump people simply used their work to move forward.

OBAMA! It's his fault!!

Again, putting words into my mouth. I never said that. I was simply clarifying the origin of the list. It's amazing the number of people in here that love to make up things I've "said".

The EO was all on Trump.

by **Cameron** 2017-01-31, 20:22

LooseGoose wrote:
Cameron wrote:

To clarify, which part isn't true? Is it untrue that the actual countries that performed terrorist actions aren't banned? Or is it untrue that he has money involved? All of the above?

Dendro wrote: Trump not banning the actual countries that performed terrorist actions? We all know it's because he has money involved. How is that not upsetting?

Highlighted the part I'm disputing. That the list was developed based on Trump's investments. It's been pretty well established that the list was built by the Obama administration and the Trump people simply used their work to move forward.

Okay, thanks for clarifying.

DWags wrote:
LooseGoose wrote:

Highlighted the part I'm disputing. That the list was developed based on Trump's investments. It's been pretty well established that the list was built by the Obama administration and the Trump people simply used their work to move forward.

OBAMA! It's his fault!!

In this instance, it seems at least somewhat justified to mention Obama. Of course it's a deflection technique too, but it is worth mentioning that Trump didn't just pull these 7 out of his ass or exclude other countries solely on the basis of business interests he may or may not have. Whether or not one agrees with the ban, I think we all have an interest in understanding more fully how this policy took shape.

WARNING! SNOPES LINK COMING! GOOSE, LOOK AWAY!

http://www.snopes.com/trump-immigration-order-obama/

by **Dendrobates** 2017-01-31, 20:34

LooseGoose wrote:
Cameron wrote:

To clarify, which part isn't true? Is it untrue that the actual countries that performed terrorist actions aren't banned? Or is it untrue that he has money involved? All of the above?

Dendro wrote: Trump not banning the actual countries that performed terrorist actions? We all know it's because he has money involved. How is that not upsetting?

Highlighted the part I'm disputing. That the list was developed based on Trump's investments. It's been pretty well established that the list was built by the Obama administration and the Trump people simply used their work to move forward.

I don't get why it matters that Obama made the list. I have no problem with him making the list because they were investigating a threat that was going on. Which still doesn't answer the question to why those countries were left out of the order. It's been known that Trump has had business dealings in those countries (now if it's current or not is the question for debate). But wouldn't most people constantly question his actions when he has had businesses in those areas. His ethics and credibility will always be questioned, especially since he has refused to release his tax returns.

by **GRR Spartan** 2017-01-31, 20:50

I.B. Fine wrote:
xsanguine wrote:

Why? We aren't banning any particular religion and we aren't even banning, period. You guys have let social justice types take over your media and now you're fed this shit.
If he likes to be fed shit, who are we to deny him that opportunity?
Bigot

From the King of the Shit Eaters IB Fine.

by **GRR Spartan** 2017-01-31, 20:53

What do the 3084 counties that voted for Trump think about this stuff?

by Guest 2017-01-31, 20:58

Dendrobates wrote:
LooseGoose wrote:

Highlighted the part I'm disputing. That the list was developed based on Trump's investments. It's been pretty well established that the list was built by the Obama administration and the Trump people simply used their work to move forward.

I don't get why it matters that Obama made the list. I have no problem with him making the list because they were investigating a threat that was going on. Which still doesn't answer the question to why those countries were left out of the order. It's been known that Trump has had business dealings in those countries (now if it's current or not is the question for debate). But wouldn't most people constantly question his actions when he has had businesses in those areas. His ethics and credibility will always be questioned, especially since he has refused to release his tax returns.

Let's be real - even if he released his tax returns people would be questioning his ethics and credibility. Surely you're not thinking that if he released his returns that all would breathe a sigh of relief and carry on knowing all was well? I'm not at all certain that he won't pull something stupid before his term is up but I'm hoping it takes longer than the 5th day.

One of the reasons that Cons are so happy tonight was that against all odds he kept his word on the SCOTUS, there was great concern of a betrayal. So the skepticism isn't limited to one side.

by **Robert J Sakimano** 2017-02-01, 08:14

DWags wrote:
LooseGoose wrote:

Highlighted the part I'm disputing. That the list was developed based on Trump's investments. It's been pretty well established that the list was built by the Obama administration and the Trump people simply used their work to move forward.

OBAMA! It's his fault!!

by **MiamiSpartan** 2017-02-01, 13:23

Dendrobates wrote:
LooseGoose wrote:

Highlighted the part I'm disputing. That the list was developed based on Trump's investments. It's been pretty well established that the list was built by the Obama administration and the Trump people simply used their work to move forward.

I don't get why it matters that Obama made the list. I have no problem with him making the list because they were investigating a threat that was going on. Which still doesn't answer the question to why those countries were left out of the order. It's been known that Trump has had business dealings in those countries (now if it's current or not is the question for debate). But wouldn't most people constantly question his actions when he has had businesses in those areas. His ethics and credibility will always be questioned, especially since he has refused to release his tax returns.

No, this is not the case. A lot of people are using this to counter the claim that Obama created the list, but I believe this is confusing two separate things four years apart. The confusion stems from Trump saying that this was similar to when Obama banned people from Iraq. THAT instance was due to an investigation in a potential plot, and was back in 2011.

It was in 2015 when this list of 7 "countries of concern" was created, after the San Bernandino attack, putting some restrictions on people from those countries. It was in reaction to an event, not an investigation, but really I can guarantee you that those "countries of concern" were labeled as such even before that, because that's how these things work.

This article discusses each of them (and notice that the article is very anti-Trump, so this is not a defense of him, just hoping to inject some facts): http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/01/30/sorry-mr-president-the-obama-administration-did-nothing-similar-to-your-immigration-ban/

Obviously how Trump is using this list is quite different than how Obama used the list, but these countries were labeled as countries of concern long before Trump, so it's disingenuous to say that Trump himself left others off the list because of his business ties. It's also overly simplistic, when people say that Obama made this list or Trump made this list. You really think the President, or even the head of the DHS, sits around coming up with this list on their own? Sure they approve the lists, but the leg work and reasoning is done by low or mid level analysts, not political appointees. The intelligence agencies are constantly reviewing and categorizing this kind of stuff. They have been since their inceptions.

But why think rationally and objectively when we can just over-simplify things in order to use it to attack whichever political party you oppose? Maybe, just maybe, those seven countries are listed as "countries of concern" for a reason, since multiple administrations have thought that to be the case, on the advice of people in the DHS. Now, when it comes to what the list is used for, and how things are being implemented, well, that's a whole other discussion.

by **InTenSity** 2017-02-01, 13:46

My wife is still concerned about going to the Philippines because her flight has a layover in Dubai. Who'd ever think people would be concerned with coming back to the US?

by **Robert J Sakimano** 2017-02-01, 13:47

InTenSity wrote:My wife is still concerned about going to the Philippines because her flight has a layover in Dubai. Who'd ever think people would be concerned with coming back to the US?

she'd better just be glad that we let her travel at all.

Sincerely,

Deplorables

by Herbie Green 2017-02-01, 16:03

xsanguine wrote:
GRR Spartan wrote:Lets just ban all folks who don't indentify themselves as Christians.

Why? We aren't banning any particular religion and we aren't even banning, period. You guys have let social justice types take over your media and now you're fed this shit.

Come on dude, this is pretty much what is happening.

by **xsanguine** 2017-02-01, 20:03

Herbie Green wrote:
xsanguine wrote:

Why? We aren't banning any particular religion and we aren't even banning, period. You guys have let social justice types take over your media and now you're fed this shit.

Come on dude, this is pretty much what is happening.

No, it's not pretty much and it's not even close.

by **GRR Spartan** 2017-02-01, 20:20

Keep minimizing what Trump and his puppet master Bannon are doing.

by **xsanguine** 2017-02-01, 20:25

I wouldn't have to if you wouldn't exaggerate and lose your virginity over it.

by Sponsored content