Trump

[DannyInvincible]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NF2k11QQW0g&feature=youtu.be&t=220

Rudy Giulani on how this executive order came into being, remarkably candid about how it's aimed directly at Muslim's and legally disguised as national security. I'm still wrapping my head around something so blatantly sectarian. Even in-flight crew from those nations aren't allowed land in the States.

Is he too thick to realise the galling and abhorrent significance of his admission - that the contrived national security aspect (which is demonstrably nonsense (https://theintercept.com/2017/01/28/trumps-muslim-ban-is-culmination-of-war-on-terror-mentality-but-still-uniquely-shameful/) anyway even if taken at face-value) is just a deceitful charade to provide legal or moral cover for explicit Islamophobia - or are those close to Trump really so brazen that being open about the ban's roots and pretext doesn't remotely faze them?

[backstothewall]

One for all decent people to sign.
https://my.uplift.ie/petitions/shamrock-not-in-my-name

Europe has to stand together. It's too dangerous for any Taoiseach to stand up to a US President, particularly one as ill-tempered as Trump.

There absolutely has to be a robust answer to Trump from Europe, but it needs to be agreed in Brussels and be consistent across the EU.

[dahamsta]

[Split from the election thread here (http://foot.ie/threads/217582-2016-US-presidential-election).]

[bennocelt]

Yeah that's what we need, another petition, lol.

I am sure there are quite a few Irish people who are more than happy that Kenny will meet the new President
http://www.thejournal.ie/refugees-poll-3-3136286-Dec2016/
But the narrative is once again controlled by the fringe....

If he doesn't go, it might affect the Irish economy. That should be our only concern, IMHO

[Real ale Madrid]

If he doesn't go, it might affect the Irish economy. That should be our only concern, IMHO

Why ? Genuine question - most US business leaders are going to war with Trump soon over the price of medication - or so he would have you believe. You really think Tim Cook cares weather Enda meets with Trump?

[NeverFeltBetter]

The Paddy's Day meeting isn't some trade summit. How much private time does any Taoiseach get with any President on the 17th March? Very little I would wager. It's a glorified photo opportunity for both, and its one that Trump doesn't deserve. It's Muslims today. Maybe next year he'll decide not enough Irish voted for him.

[Wolfman]

Agreed. He's a Prize Assh*le. Even Enda looks better than him, FFS!

[DannyInvincible]

Yeah that's what we need, another petition, lol.

I am sure there are quite a few Irish people who are more than happy that Kenny will meet the new President
http://www.thejournal.ie/refugees-poll-3-3136286-Dec2016/
But the narrative is once again controlled by the fringe....

If he doesn't go, it might affect the Irish economy. That should be our only concern, IMHO

The narrative is controlled by Kenny and the Irish government surely, no? He's said he'll be meeting Trump regardless of the expressed concerns of many Irish citizens. The latter have simply voiced their opinions, but Kenny isn't and won't be controlled by that. He may decide to be influenced, or he may not - after all, petitions are pretty impotent in terms of forcing political change - but's it's still ultimately the choice of Kenny and his government. I think it's important to dispel this notion that the narrative is being controlled by some "politically correct(?) fringe", if that's your insinuation.

Isn't saying that the Irish economy should be our only concern - rather than principles, values, Irish citizens who'll potentially endure hardship or broader humanity - just a form of grand-scale gombeenism? Is there nothing a US president could do for you to think, "Here, wait a minute, lodging some form of protest, disapproval or criticism might be preferable here to just grovelling at a proto-fascist's altar with our smiling Irish eyes and a big pot of shamrock because we want some of that sweet yankee dollar"?

Generally-speaking, it's good to see more people at least politicised to a greater degree than previously by Trump's election - perhaps that's its "silver lining", if there is one, just like Brexit may provoke greater interest in politics and current affairs in Britain as well as Ireland - but let's not pretend that Trump will be unique or an aberration. Trump is just getting warmed up in a role that was made for him (https://www.rt.com/op-edge/375894-banning-people-regime-change-muslims/#).


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5BXtgq0Nhsc

Edit: What's the relevance of the link to the story on refugees?

[TheOneWhoKnocks]

I get a good chuckle out of the likes of Sean Penn, Alec Baldwin and Bruce Springsteen pontificating about Trump's human rights record.

Sean Penn has a history of making questionable comments that could be construed as racist, his son too. He battered Madonna when they were in a relationship. Alec Baldwin, too, has a history of making questionable comments that could be construed as racist. He verbally abused his daughter in a leaked voicemail. Bruce certainly isn't racist or abusive, but he feigned homosexuality and mental illness to avoid serving his country in Vietnam so I think he lost the right to generalise the blue-collar electorate as easily misled racists.

As for Trump's travel ban - Obama did the same thing when he banned visas for refugees from Iraq in 2011.

The mainstream media is so biased against Trump that it makes it difficult to differentiate his actual faults from his real faults.

[Real ale Madrid]

As for Trump's travel ban - Obama did the same thing when he banned visas for refugees from Iraq in 2011.

The mainstream media is so biased against Trump that it makes it difficult to differentiate his actual faults from his real faults.

It's literally mind blowingly ironic that you find it difficult to differentiate between facts and his real faults when you prefaced that statement with one of his own lies that you took as a fact. Sensational stupidity.

http://www.vox.com/world/2017/1/31/14444862/obama-refugee-ban-2011

[KrisLetang]

You can't get your news from Vox though Real. I mean...of all the crazy news people going on and on now..they have to be at the absolute bottom of the boat. Some of my office friends seem to get their news fro mLouis CK and i would respect it more than Vox. I don't even know how to shape into words how awful Vox is. All due respect to you. I would even take someone like Rachel Maddow or Chris Mathews to be more objective than Vox. Its almost comical that you would quote Vox. Have you seen the things they have said over the last year that they had to retract? Or even the other stuff...like Obama stutters without a teleprompter and hems and haws BC he is SO smart that he has SO MANY ideas at once and cant decide which one to say. yeah ok lol. Vox is like talking to a 2 year old. BTW they don't seem to understand the difference between "refugee" and "economic migrant." It's pretty simple really.

[Real ale Madrid]

You can't get your news from Vox though Real. I mean...of all the crazy news people going on and on now..they have to be at the absolute bottom of the boat. Some of my office friends seem to get their news fro mLouis CK and i would respect it more than Vox. I don't even know how to shape into words how awful Vox is. All due respect to you. I would even take someone like Rachel Maddow or Chris Mathews to be more objective than Vox. Its almost comical that you would quote Vox. Have you seen the things they have said over the last year that they had to retract? Or even the other stuff...like Obama stutters without a teleprompter and hems and haws BC he is SO smart that he has SO MANY ideas at once and cant decide which one to say. yeah ok lol. Vox is like talking to a 2 year old. BTW they don't seem to understand the difference between "refugee" and "economic migrant." It's pretty simple really.

What the hell are you blabbering on about? Here are a few more if you don't like vox

http://www.factcheck.org/2017/01/trumps-faulty-refugee-policy-comparison/

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/jan/30/donald-trump/why-comparing-trumps-and-obamas-immigration-restri/

http://wapo.st/2jt4DQY?tid=ss_tw-amp

[backstothewall]

What's the betting that despite the current affairs forum being one of the runts of the litter that this thread ends up being bigger than "Eligibility Rules - Okay" by the end of the 4 or (god forbid) 8 years?

[SkStu]

RAM you've just backed up a sh!tty source with three equally sh!tty and biased references.

I did a search for articles closer to the time - before everything you read became completely partisan and narrative based - and picked a random article that reported what happened.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/al-qaeda-kentucky-us-dozens-terrorists-country-refugees/story?id=20931131


As a result of the Kentucky case, the State Department stopped processing Iraq refugees for six months in 2011, federal officials told ABC News – even for many who had heroically helped U.S. forces as interpreters and intelligence assets. One Iraqi who had aided American troops was assassinated before his refugee application could be processed, because of the immigration delays, two U.S. officials said.

[TheOneWhoKnocks]

It's literally mind blowingly ironic that you find it difficult to differentiate between facts and his real faults when you prefaced that statement with one of his own lies that you took as a fact. Sensational stupidity.

http://www.vox.com/world/2017/1/31/14444862/obama-refugee-ban-2011

You're citing Vox!


It is this trend that has made VOX a reliable mouthpiece for Hillary Clinton (https://www.pastemagazine.com/tag/Hillary+Clinton), who has relied heavily on donations from Wall Street (http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2016/07/clinton-and-wall-street-whats-the-deal-really/) this election—leading her opponent (http://www.wsj.com/articles/hedge-fund-money-48-5-million-for-hillary-clinton-19-000-for-donald-trump-1469784601) in money from hedge funds as of July of this year. VOX’s headlines over the past year have reinforced whatever narrative the former Secretary of State’s campaign was pushing at that moment, from the idea that she was representing Obama’s third term (http://www.vox.com/2016/5/26/11782650/bernie-sanders-democratic-establishment) to the idea (http://www.vox.com/2016/6/8/11881130/bernie-sanders-politico) that Sanders’ campaign was unraveling—an idea we now know was directly advocated for (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/23/us/politics/dnc-emails-sanders-clinton.html?_r=0) by high-ranking DNC officials.

[Real ale Madrid]

Good to have you back Stu. I thought you had left for good. At no stage during the Obama administration were Iraqui refugees stopped from entering or were any of them denied visas by way of a blanket ban. - there was a legitimate delay on foot of a genuine threat and as the volume was at its peak there was casualties no question.

Any fair minded person would not , having read about the issue, in any way at all, compare what went on during the Obama administration with what Trump did last week. Which is what was inferred previously, which is ridiculous.

What next - are we going to find articles about the Bowling Green massacre? Or how women should dress? How about articles refuting the death Frederick Douglass - he's doing a great job you know! Mental.

[Real ale Madrid]

You're citing Vox!

Good comeback! :rolleyes:

[Real ale Madrid]

And hopefully some good news?

Am I allowed link to the BBC I wonder......

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38864253?ns_mchannel=social&ns_campaign=

[SkStu]

No, not gone away. Just enjoying a new job and watching the liberal left in the States destroy itself more and more each day which says more than I ever could about the state they are in. It would really be quite funny if they weren't promoting violence against Trump supporters and encouraging their own supporters to engage in actual physical violence and rioting. Sad!

My point in quoting the article from abc was to show the language being used to describe the Obama ban 4 years ago and how it is similar to what is being done by Trump. All you are arguing in your post above is just semantics. Same intent, same effect.

You do realize the vacuous stupidity and levels of denial involved in saying "durr muh it wasn't even a massacre in bowling green, these guys don't know what they're doing. Reeeeeeeee!!" Instead of accepting the conspiracy that was taking place in Bowling Green as good reasoning why the best screening/vetting is important. Or picking at ambiguity in spoken words of Trump as sure fire evidence that he thought Douglass was alive and therefore not fit to hold office. Not sure about the reference to how women should dress but im guessing it's some reference to Islam.

[Charlie Darwin]

watching the liberal left in the States destroy itself more and more each day
You'd be run out of Dalymount Park these days :)

[SkStu]

You'd be run out of Dalymount Park these days :)

Ha! I know, I know... ;) (there's a reason I added "in the States"!)

to be honest I'm fairly liberal all things being told; I just also think there's a balance to be brought to the discussion of this issue (refugee pause) and this political moment (President Trump) and I feel that any semblance of balance is sorely missing which has had the effect of highlighting that I am not supportive of liberalism for the sake of liberalism. There's a need for a return of common sense.

I support refugees and immigration of course but I also recognize the need for a country like the USA to ensure immigration occurs as safely as possible and to a standard deemed acceptable by the administration. For Trump to ask for a 3 month pause while they ascertain the process and potential improvements to it is fairly understandable to me just as a general observer of world affairs. Like, I get why.

There's no reasonable expectation of a right to be allowed entry into whatever country a person wants and, if someone is asking for admission, he/she needs to meet the criteria set by that country, however overly stringent or arbitrary they may appear - that's a sovereign nations right.

I think the ban was rolled out very poorly.

[Real ale Madrid]

I guess you can never be too careful alright , there are a lot of 'bad dudes' out there, a really 'bad dude' opened fire at a mosque the other day, didn't get a mention on the old twitter, but a machete welding UAE tourist (a country not on your hilariously named 'refugee pause' by the way) had Mr Trump on the twitter machine so fast , I mean really fast, so you know, no agenda here folks.

Anyway let's agree to disagree for a while and review after 100 days, it seems pointless arguing anyway, you dismiss every source I use to back up my argument and you dismissed my argument last night as semantics, which is particularly ironic given that you admitted that you had no clue of the vetting process in the US last week.

In the words of the man himself "WAKE UP SKSTU"

[SkStu]

I knew "refugee pause" would trigger you. This is too easy :D

[Real ale Madrid]

Its a good one - I'll give you that. FAKE NEWS!

[TheOneWhoKnocks]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Lfse9ygELs

Bill Clinton receives a standing ovation after his speech imploring the deportation of illegal immigrants in 1995.

[SkStu]

I posted that already and it got shot down.

"It was wrong then and it is wrong now" was the only response of note. There's something apparently very wrong with wanting to stop people from illegally entering a country.

The hypocrisy apparently doesn't matter either.

[Real ale Madrid]

I posted that already and it got shot down.

"It was wrong then and it is wrong now" was the only response of note. There's something apparently very wrong with wanting to stop people from illegally entering a country.

The hypocrisy apparently doesn't matter either.

It didn't get shot down but sure you knew that anyway. What would you know about entering a country illegally? You admitted you knew nothing of the vetting process last week. What makes you so informed now?

I see Trump has called out the ' so called ' judge that has put a stay on his racist EO. Looking forward to your assessment of his silence regarding the white supremacist who murdered those Muslims a few days ago but his almost immediate reaction to the machete attack in Paris. Or has the media narrative not cranked up against Trump's agenda enough yet?

WiSE UP SKSTU!

[TheOneWhoKnocks]

What's racist about it? I thought Aisling Brady McCarthy should have been booted out of the country long before she was accused of infanticide. Does that make me racist against myself?

The logic behind Trump being racist and sexist is pretty thin TBF. Hillary Clinton's connections to the KKK (Robert Byrd) are stronger than Trump's (his father's connections to the KKK having been thoroughly debunked).

And I'd be more concerned about her husband sticking cigars up the private parts of interns then I would be Trump's braggadocio about "grabbing them by the p****".

It's pretty amusing to see the likes of HuffPost and Slate getting into a tizzy over such nonsense when the other candidate's husband has actually paid settlements to non-imaginary sexual assault victims.

Hey Madrid, what do you think about Clinton being given the questions before the debates?

[SkStu]

It didn't get shot down but sure you knew that anyway. What would you know about entering a country illegally? You admitted you knew nothing of the vetting process last week. What makes you so informed now?

It's not brain surgery to be honest. They're two completely different scenarios you are putting side by side. Vetted immigration v walking across a border line. One is a legal process the other is not. Simples.


I see Trump has called out the ' so called ' judge that has put a stay on his racist EO. Looking forward to your assessment of his silence regarding the white supremacist who murdered those Muslims a few days ago but his almost immediate reaction to the machete attack in Paris. Or has the media narrative not cranked up against Trump's agenda enough yet?

WiSE UP SKSTU!

His executive order is not racist.

He called Trudeau and offered his sympathy and assistance and according to Trudeau was very helpful. He didn't tweet about it I assume because it isn't relevant to the threat of refugees which is what he is attempting to protect against. Spicer was asked about it a number of times during his press briefings this week and said that they will protect all people from internal aggression of that type, that they knew who the major threats are and that they would be taking action. Trump tweeted about the Paris event because it was perpetrated by a Muslim who entered France with bad intent.

OPEN YOUR MIND MR. RAM!!

[TheOneWhoKnocks]

More chance of the liberals triggering a holy war than Steve Bannon.

[Real ale Madrid]

TOWK - you know Trump won the election right? In fairness the Thread title was changed a few days ago so may not have seen it but let's stick to Trump stuff here!

YOU DONT WANT TO BE A BAD HOMBRE DO YOU?

[Real ale Madrid]

He didn't tweet about it I assume because it isn't relevant to the threat of refugees which is what he is attempting to protect against.


BINGO!!!!!!!! WELCOME TO THE OTHER SIDE MAN ITS GOOD TO HAVE YOU!



Spicer was asked about it a number of times during his press briefings this week and said that they will protect all people from internal aggression of that type, that they knew who the major threats are and that they would be taking action.


By improving gun legislation one would hope. Nah - won't get him any votes that. Better stop a selection of bad dudes! And Tweet about it!

Sean Spicer though - the best Press Secretary ever - PERIOD!




Trump tweeted about the Paris event because it was perpetrated by a Muslim who entered France with bad intent.


Jesus dude you are starting to sound like him. Maybe we should stop the 'Trumpisms'.



Trump tweeted about the Paris event because it was perpetrated by a Muslim who entered France with bad intent.


I assume Trump should stop Tourist visas from the UAE now via an EO - its the next logical step is it not?

[SkStu]

Ok - are we back on a break RAM? :)

[SkStu]

BINGO!!!!!!!! WELCOME TO THE OTHER SIDE MAN ITS GOOD TO HAVE YOU!



By improving gun legislation one would hope. Nah - won't get him any votes that. Better stop a selection of bad dudes! And Tweet about it!

Sean Spicer though - the best Press Secretary ever - PERIOD!




Jesus dude you are starting to sound like him. Maybe we should stop the 'Trumpisms'.



I assume Trump should stop Tourist visas from the UAE now via an EO - its the next logical step is it not?

They're not sending their best, folks!

[Real ale Madrid]

Ok - are we back on a break RAM? :)

.....

2514

[Wolfman]

That's a horrible image!

[SkStu]

That's a horrible image!

Alright Donald, settle down.

[Wolfman]

:confused:

[SkStu]

Oh, you know. You know.

[Real ale Madrid]

The facts still matter:

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/02/04/opinions/facts-matter-terror-threat-aslan/index.html

[TheOneWhoKnocks]

I'm only trying to accurately represent Trump's policies and to compare and contrast the current hysteria with the media's sycophantic behavior toward presidents they like. I guarantee you that if President Obama made exactly the same decision there would be only a small mention by the media in contrast to the uproar Trump gets for everything he says and does.

The basis for Trump's executive order is that the ban is issued toward countries that have an unstable government or government which has used terrorism against Americans. If it was a "Muslim ban", then Saudi Arabia would have been included. You disprove your own assertion. Egypt, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Oman, Kuwait, Jordan, Turkey, Morocco, etc. don't have bans in spite of being Muslim countries. Therefore it's not a Muslim ban. Secondly, the ban is only for 90 days, and 120 days for Syrians.

Will it help ISIS? Not really. ISIS will grab onto anything it gets for propaganda purposes. In one ad it used Bill Clinton's adulterous history for propaganda and labeled him a fornicator.

A lot of the celebrities who are railing against Trump would do better to take a position on policy and ethics rather than partisanship.

[DannyInvincible]

The basis for Trump's executive order is that the ban is issued toward countries that have an unstable government or government which has used terrorism against Americans. If it was a "Muslim ban", then Saudi Arabia would have been included. You disprove your own assertion. Egypt, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Oman, Kuwait, Jordan, Turkey, Morocco, etc. don't have bans in spite of being Muslim countries. Therefore it's not a Muslim ban. Secondly, the ban is only for 90 days, and 120 days for Syrians.

The purported "national security" rationale behind the ban is both a charade (for legal purposes) and demonstrable nonsense (https://theintercept.com/2017/01/28/trumps-muslim-ban-is-culmination-of-war-on-terror-mentality-but-still-uniquely-shameful/). NFB already posted this up-thread, but see from 3m40s:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NF2k11QQW0g&feature=youtu.be&t=220


When [Trump] first announced it, he said ‘Muslim ban.’ He called me up, he said, ‘Put a commission together, show me the right way to do it legally.'


The sole ostensible rationale for this ban — it is necessary to keep out Muslim extremists — collapses upon the most minimal scrutiny. The countries that have produced and supported the greatest number of anti-U.S. terrorists — Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Qatar, UAE — are excluded from the ban list because the tyrannical regimes that run those countries are close U.S. allies. Conversely, the countries that are included — Syria, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Iran, Sudan, and Yemen — have produced virtually no such terrorists; as the Cato Institute documented on Friday night: “Foreigners from those seven nations have killed zero Americans in terrorist attacks on U.S. soil between 1975 and the end of 2015.” Indeed, as of a 2015 study by the New America research center, deaths caused by terrorism from right-wing nationalists since 9/11 have significantly exceeded those from Muslim extremists.

[TheOneWhoKnocks]

Rudy Giuliani a reliable source of information now! Imagine that.

http://listverse.com/2017/02/06/10-serious-problems-with-how-we-get-the-news/
(http://listverse.com/2017/02/06/10-serious-problems-with-how-we-get-the-news/)

It’s how new “news” sources get big. Entertainment websites, like Vox, Huffington Post, and Buzzfeed News, all got big by getting shares on Facebook. They succeed because they tailor their content to fit Facebook’s algorithm, giving precedence to clicks over truth.
It goes a little bit further, though. Facebook actively influences what people see on their site. They hire “news curators” to decide what will be trending on the site, and those news curators aren’t unbiased. They have even admitted to deliberately promoting left-wing content (http://gizmodo.com/former-facebook-workers-we-routinely%20suppressed-conser-1775461006).

(http://listverse.com/2017/02/06/10-serious-problems-with-how-we-get-the-news/)


Sometimes, the facts get skewed on purpose. Before The Washington Post sold themselves to Amazon, they tried something even worse to scrape by. They offered to sell sit-down meetings with their journalists to political elites (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/jul/08/washington-post-weymouth-salon) who wanted to influence their stories. They only pulled out of the idea when they got caught . . . but then, in 2016, they were again caught by Wikileaks colluding with the DNC and Clinton campaign to promote their agenda.


During the last US election, fake news stories were shared more often than real ones. These weren’t just simple mistakes; they were fake articles created for the sake of spreading lies, and they exist on both sides. Democrat voters floated a made-up quote of Donald Trump (https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/nov/20/barack-obama-facebook-fake-news-problem) calling Republicans “the dumbest group of voters in the country,”

[DannyInvincible]

Rudy Giuliani a reliable source of information now! Imagine that.

Are you suggesting Giuliani is lying about Trump having contacted him in order to have him set up a commission who could make legal and real Trump's oft-and-explicitly-expressed desire for a Muslim ban?

[TheOneWhoKnocks]

Let's say Trump said it. Let's say his friends and associates said, "You can't do that. That's crazy and unconstitutional." (In a diplomatic way, of course.) Then came up with a plan to deal with refugees and some immigrants that's NOT a Muslim ban. If it was a Muslim ban then there'd be bans on 40+ Muslim countries instead of only seven. If Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan and Indonesia aren't banned, how can anyone seriously call it a Muslim ban? It's a temporary moratorium, not a permanent ban.

Personally, I don't think it's necessary, but I'm not going to misrepresent it because I disagree with it. That's how we get fake news. (Refer to link I posted above) Anyone who calls it a Muslim ban is either ignorant or disingenuous.

I've seen people reply: "Well, he's going to focus on bringing in religious minorities! Isn't that discriminating against Muslims?" Uh, no. Was President Obama discriminating against Christians when he brought in 10,000 Muslims and only 53 Christians? What he's doing is favouring the people who are most persecuted and discriminated in those seven countries. Christians and Yazidis are even persecuted in refugee camps. Who's doing the persecuting? Muslims! So, frankly, it seems like a good policy to me.

[KrisLetang]

I've golfed with Rudy a few times, he's getting up there in age. I wouldn't take everything he says literally. Trumper really didn't want to find a job for him because of his (Rudy's) company's Iranian connections. Rudy's first wife I believe was a first cousin. That's a little odd. Great leadership on 9-11 though.

[DannyInvincible]

Let's say Trump said it. Let's say his friends and associates said, "You can't do that. That's crazy and unconstitutional." (In a diplomatic way, of course.) Then came up with a plan to deal with refugees and some immigrants that's NOT a Muslim ban. If it was a Muslim ban then there'd be bans on 40+ Muslim countries instead of only seven. If Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan and Indonesia aren't banned, how can anyone seriously call it a Muslim ban? It's a temporary moratorium, not a permanent ban.

Personally, I don't think it's necessary, but I'm not going to misrepresent it because I disagree with it. That's how we get fake news. (Refer to link I posted above) Anyone who calls it a Muslim ban is either ignorant or disingenuous.

Wasn't it Trump himself who first spoke (https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trump-statement-on-preventing-muslim-immigration) and continues to speak (https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/826060143825666051) in such terms?

Trump's expressions and declared intent are likely to be relevant for the courts in judging the legality of the order: http://edition.cnn.com/2017/02/06/politics/trump-muslim-ban-travel-lawsuit/


Legal challenges to the order point to a series of statements about Trump's intent to ban Muslims from entering the US as evidence that the move was in fact designed with such a goal in mind -- and constitutional law experts agree there is a precedent for the courts taking that argument to heart.

In a case currently before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, lawyers for the states of Washington and Minnesota cite previous court holdings on religious discrimination that it is "'the duty of the courts to distinguish a sham secular purpose from a sincere one.'"

"Here, the sham of a secular purpose is exposed by both the language of the order and defendants' expressions of anti-Muslim intent," the lawyers wrote.

Constitutional scholars agree that those statements made by Trump and his surrogates could be used in proceedings.

"Those statements are definitely relevant, because there's a longstanding doctrine that there can be laws or executive orders that on their face don't discriminative on the basis of race or religion but that is their motive -- and if that is their motive, they can be struck down," said Ilya Somin, a George Mason University law professor.


What he's doing is favouring the people who are most persecuted and discriminated in those seven countries.

The order makes no exception besides for minority religion applicants. As a result, refugees persecuted for their sexual orientation or suffering from medical crises are in limbo with the other people denied entry.


Christians and Yazidis are even persecuted in refugee camps. Who's doing the persecuting? Muslims! So, frankly, it seems like a good policy to me.

You're generalising, like Trump, on the basis of professed religious belief.

As Greenwald wrote: "The very idea of determining who merits refuge on the basis of religious belief is bigotry in its purest sense."

[TheOneWhoKnocks]

What he did is use a list that the Obama administration came up with. That's where he got those seven countries, and they are justifiable countries of concern since in most of them there's no bureaucracy to obtain documents. Iran is the largest state sponsor of terrorism. Plus, it's a 90 to 120 day moratorium, not an indefinite ban. So facts are facts. There is no ban against all Muslims, in fact there's no ban at all. It's like a 14-day waiting period for guns isn't a ban on guns. This increases the waiting period on those seven countries for now, and even non-Muslims are adversely affected.

And, by the way, they're not all Arab. Libyans are North Africans (generally Berbers), Iranians are descended from Persians, Sudan and Somalia are East Africans. I do know that in the U.S. there have been a number of Somalians who want Sharia there and support ISIS and Al Qaeda. Somalia used to be a beautiful country. The Islamists ruined that country.

[DannyInvincible]

Who mentioned anything about anyone being Arab?

[SkStu]

To be fair, Giuliani was absolutely a close ally of Trumps during the campaign and worked as part of his transition team so I believe that Rudy has the background on it.

Trump uses language very loosely. It is not typical of the doublespeak and downright duplicitous language we have become used to from our politicians. Part of what comes from this is that, by my estimation, he doesn't care about the significance of and difference between using a phrase like "Muslim ban" and, say, "a ban on terrorists from Muslim countries" even if he truly intends it to be the latter. If you want to disconnect from the hysteria and give him a reasonable benefit of the doubt, it is clear from what he said during the campaign and in defence of his EO that his intent is to protect the country from bad dudes. Whether they are dangerous Catholics or dangerous Muslims. He is not a good speaker though - you can see how he struggles to articulate things politically - so he gets himself in trouble and comes across as even more of a buffoon than he actually is.

By the way there is no way in hell that the ban on the ban will stand though. Not a chance. He has the express authority to do this and it clearly is not a "Muslim ban" as TOWK has articulated.

The other thing I'll add to this general debate is that, while there have been relatively few (not zero) terrorist attacks on American soil by immigrants, to ignore and decry the risk posed by certain Muslim immigrants is very foolish. In light of the Paris (multiple), Nice, Tunisia, Brussels, Spain, London etc attacks in the last 10 years there is a real (i.e. not imaginary) threat posed by radical Islam whether they are mobile migrants or disenfranchised citizens. It is worth ensuring that steps are taken to minimize the threats.

And again, I'll repeat, any sovereign country can determine who gets to migrate into their country and establish the rules to do so. There is no right of immigration.