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?
Printable View
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?
BINGO!!!!!!!! WELCOME TO THE OTHER SIDE MAN ITS GOOD TO HAVE YOU!Quote:
Originally Posted by SkStu
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!Quote:
Originally Posted by SkStu
Sean Spicer though - the best Press Secretary ever - PERIOD!
Jesus dude you are starting to sound like him. Maybe we should stop the 'Trumpisms'.Quote:
Originally Posted by SkStu
I assume Trump should stop Tourist visas from the UAE now via an EO - its the next logical step is it not?Quote:
Originally Posted by SkStu
Ok - are we back on a break RAM? :)
They're not sending their best, folks!Quote:
Originally Posted by Real ale Madrid
.....Quote:
Originally Posted by SkStu
Attachment 2514
That's a horrible image!
Alright Donald, settle down.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolfman
:confused:
Oh, you know. You know.
The facts still matter:
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/02/04/op...lan/index.html
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.
The purported "national security" rationale behind the ban is both a charade (for legal purposes) and demonstrable nonsense. NFB already posted this up-thread, but see from 3m40s:Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOneWhoKnocks
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NF2k...youtu.be&t=220
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudy Giuliani
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glenn Greenwald
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/
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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 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.
Quote:
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 calling Republicans “the dumbest group of voters in the country,”
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
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.
Wasn't it Trump himself who first spoke and continues to speak in such terms?Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOneWhoKnocks
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/po...ravel-lawsuit/
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tal Kopan
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOneWhoKnocks
You're generalising, like Trump, on the basis of professed religious belief.Quote:
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.
As Greenwald wrote: "The very idea of determining who merits refuge on the basis of religious belief is bigotry in its purest sense."
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.
Who mentioned anything about anyone being Arab?
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.
Found this today while browsing. Kind of challenges the popular narrative.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/ar...form=hootsuite
Quote:
Now, it turns out Robart might not know as much as he let on. Last summer, the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest analyzed public sources of information, seeking to learn more about people convicted of terror-related offenses. The Justice Department provided the subcommittee with a list of 580 people who were convicted — not just arrested, but tried and convicted — of terror-related offenses between Sept. 11, 2001 and Dec. 31, 2014.
The subcommittee investigated further and found that at least 380 of the 580 were foreign-born and that an additional 129 were of unknown origin. Of the 380, there were representatives — at least 60 — from all of the countries on the Trump executive order list. And with 129 unknowns, there might be more, as well.
In addition, since the Senate list was compiled, there have been others involved in terrorism in the United States from the seven countries. One highly-publicized example was the case of Abdul Artan, a Somali refugee who last November wounded 11 people with a machete during an attack on the campus of Ohio State University. In fairness to Judge Robart, Artan was shot and killed by police — not arrested — so perhaps the judge didn't count him.
60 convictions over the course of 13 years,and no American killed at the hands of terror related activity in that time from the 7 banned countries.
So the justification for a ban is zero deaths and an average of 4.6 convictions per year.
On the face of it US Immigration did a good job keeping Americans safe over that period - I wonder how 4.6 convictions per year for those 7 countries stands up v convictions of Irish people, Canadian etc.
I don't know about you - but that seems a bit heavy handed to me, kind of confirms the popular narrative also - the judge was incorrect in his assertion mind you.
Typical liberal loony thinking! ^^
Many media sites publishing info on the many terrorist attacks that have been carried out over the last number of years. It's surprising how easy it has been for Trump to get the media to defeat their own narrative.
Something is different about Trump than previous incumbents that inspires such unprecedented protests. It's as if he embodies deep troublesome echoes of Nazism, the McCarthy witchhunt era and the civil rights era of KKK like generated fear against Black Americans having their civil rights and having them protected.
And anyone who objects to Trump is labelled a "lefty", they obviously haven't met our Joe Higgins:D
"Left" must be the most abused term in american english.
So far Trump has adopted positions he loudly mocked his "crooked" political rivals about and done an about turn.
He's stocked his cabinet with six top donors,
tapped 2 ex Goldman Sachs employees to lead the economic policy,
family business overlapping,
and didn't prosecute crooked Hilary.
Generally free market economy calls for a centralised state system to maintain order and it follows there's a huge shift called the "great moving right show" to develop the repressive apparatus.
For example in Thatcher's time it was the
POTA - the first big instrument to normalise the politics of repression in Britain.
The Contempt of Court Act 1981(reporting ban on trials - in the national interest )
The Employment Acts 1980/2 (trade union repression)
etc etc. the list just goes on and on
In the US, the catch all is the Patriot Act, literally quote national security (no case need be argued or scrutinised) and it's off to the isolation tank, indefinitely. The president can quote national security as justification for any order. Then there is the Dept of Homeland Security with 240,000 employees and a budget of >$40bn p/a.
In the US, the bathroom holds an infinitely greater threat of lethal terror than the refugee does.
Think being labelled a "lefty liberal" is quite the opposite of an insult tbh. Most like the tag. A vast array of Americans in general have a deep irrational fear of anything "left", as if its the first step to communism.
I was more referring to an abuse of the term "left" when being used to label a democrat, than the democrat being abused by being labelled a lefty :)
The "lefty liberal" tag is another tag altogether, Only in America!
I had never watched this Sat Night Live thing on US tv station NBC but since Trump came along I never miss it. The program's available on their website, open viewing.
In the beginning I thought it was all SNL content but then somebody told me they had adverts about every 15 minutes. In my defense, I find it difficult to separate the real content from the parody in certain parts of the world.
edit, I see that SNL is geoblocked if you don't use some method to de-geoblock.
You're shooting fish in a barrel when it comes to challenging a Trump belch with considered facts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Real ale Madrid
That Washington Examiner rag couldn't even challenge a flat earth National Enquirer headline.
Apparently, that there's a one in 4 billion chance of a real real American getting a toenail broken by a "muslim terrorist" is a false news item propagated by really really bad people, according to Trump. In an explanation to his electorate, Trump stated
“radical Islamic” terrorist attacks are “not even being reported” by the “very, very dishonest press.”
In an Irish political landscape, Trump would probably tick most of the boxes of the creationist DUP, considering the depth of paranoia/fear/suspicion and conspiracy theories, being such a large part of their political appeal.
Court upholds stay on Muslim Ban.
Trump responds with - "see you in court". :confused:
Fixed that for you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Real ale Madrid
SNL was on a major downward spiral the last few years, Trump is a gift to them.Quote:
Originally Posted by geysir
Alec Balwin's Trump is brilliant, and Melissa McCarthy's Sean Spicer is the funniest thing I've seen on there in years. Rosie O'Donnell is now angling for a slot as Steve Bannon, egged on by users from Reddit, have a look at her profile pic on Twitter today. (O'Donnell has feuded with Trump for years now.)
Baldwin is hosting SNL this week, it's likely to be a corker.
'Oh no, not court,' say judges.:cool:Quote:
Originally Posted by Real ale Madrid
Honestly, how is this in anyway productive? The tactics being employed by the left and the Dems are far more worrying and damaging to the country than anything Trump has done so far. Left wing extremism is as vile as it's right wing equivalent.
https://twitter.com/abc7news/status/830078974889959429
In fairness it's about as productive as giving De Vos that job in the first place.Quote:
Originally Posted by SkStu
You'd wonder why people feel so strongly about the likes of De Vos wouldn't you?
Trump refers to Sen. Warren as Pocahontas during a Senators meeting. Disgusting.
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/0...meeting-234909
Damn right - it's Fauxcahontas. He needs to get this stuff right.Quote:
Originally Posted by Real ale Madrid
Why the pro-Frump rhetoric?
I think it will be far less harmful than Obama picking Clinton as his Secretary of State.Quote:
Originally Posted by Real ale Madrid
This is why:Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolfman
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-cqIo6-TCBH...8A/s1600/1.png
SkSku is having understandable trouble forgiving the Obama administration for the Fraggle Rock Massacre.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolfman