Page 5 of 29 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 100 of 579

Thread: Trump

  1. #81
    The Cheeto God Real ale Madrid's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Cork
    Posts
    3,429
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    367
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,262
    Thanked in
    618 Posts
    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?
    If a dog weighs under 50 lbs it's a cat, and cats are useless.

  2. #82
    The Cheeto God Real ale Madrid's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Cork
    Posts
    3,429
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    367
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,262
    Thanked in
    618 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by SkStu View Post
    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!

    Quote Originally Posted by SkStu View Post
    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!


    Quote Originally Posted by SkStu View Post
    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'.

    Quote Originally Posted by SkStu View Post
    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?
    If a dog weighs under 50 lbs it's a cat, and cats are useless.

  3. #83
    Capped Player SkStu's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Saskatchewan, Canada
    Posts
    11,364
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    2,146
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    3,400
    Thanked in
    1,804 Posts
    Ok - are we back on a break RAM?

  4. #84
    Capped Player SkStu's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Saskatchewan, Canada
    Posts
    11,364
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    2,146
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    3,400
    Thanked in
    1,804 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Real ale Madrid View Post
    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!

  5. #85
    The Cheeto God Real ale Madrid's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Cork
    Posts
    3,429
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    367
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,262
    Thanked in
    618 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by SkStu View Post
    Ok - are we back on a break RAM?
    .....

    Attachment 2514
    If a dog weighs under 50 lbs it's a cat, and cats are useless.

  6. #86
    Reserves
    Joined
    May 2011
    Posts
    298
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    121
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    28
    Thanked in
    19 Posts
    That's a horrible image!

  7. #87
    Capped Player SkStu's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Saskatchewan, Canada
    Posts
    11,364
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    2,146
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    3,400
    Thanked in
    1,804 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Wolfman View Post
    That's a horrible image!
    Alright Donald, settle down.

  8. #88
    Reserves
    Joined
    May 2011
    Posts
    298
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    121
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    28
    Thanked in
    19 Posts

  9. #89
    Capped Player SkStu's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Saskatchewan, Canada
    Posts
    11,364
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    2,146
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    3,400
    Thanked in
    1,804 Posts
    Oh, you know. You know.

  10. #90
    The Cheeto God Real ale Madrid's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Cork
    Posts
    3,429
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    367
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,262
    Thanked in
    618 Posts
    If a dog weighs under 50 lbs it's a cat, and cats are useless.

  11. #91
    Banned TheOneWhoKnocks's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Ted Bundy of the Wesht
    Posts
    5,246
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    470
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    699
    Thanked in
    517 Posts
    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.

  12. #92
    Capped Player DannyInvincible's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Derry
    Posts
    11,500
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    3,383
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    3,725
    Thanked in
    2,277 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by TheOneWhoKnocks View Post
    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. NFB already posted this up-thread, but see from 3m40s:



    Quote Originally Posted by Rudy Giuliani
    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.'
    Quote Originally Posted by Glenn Greenwald
    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.

  13. Thanks From:


  14. #93
    Banned TheOneWhoKnocks's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Ted Bundy of the Wesht
    Posts
    5,246
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    470
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    699
    Thanked in
    517 Posts
    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/

    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.


    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.
    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,”
    Last edited by TheOneWhoKnocks; 06/02/2017 at 6:58 PM.

  15. #94
    Capped Player DannyInvincible's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Derry
    Posts
    11,500
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    3,383
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    3,725
    Thanked in
    2,277 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by TheOneWhoKnocks View Post
    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?

  16. #95
    Banned TheOneWhoKnocks's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Ted Bundy of the Wesht
    Posts
    5,246
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    470
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    699
    Thanked in
    517 Posts
    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.

  17. #96
    Banned KrisLetang's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    572
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    13
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    145
    Thanked in
    82 Posts
    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.

  18. #97
    Capped Player DannyInvincible's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Derry
    Posts
    11,500
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    3,383
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    3,725
    Thanked in
    2,277 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by TheOneWhoKnocks View Post
    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 and continues to speak 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/po...ravel-lawsuit/

    Quote Originally Posted by Tal Kopan
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by TheOneWhoKnocks View Post
    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."

  19. #98
    Banned TheOneWhoKnocks's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Ted Bundy of the Wesht
    Posts
    5,246
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    470
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    699
    Thanked in
    517 Posts
    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.

  20. #99
    Capped Player DannyInvincible's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Derry
    Posts
    11,500
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    3,383
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    3,725
    Thanked in
    2,277 Posts
    Who mentioned anything about anyone being Arab?

  21. #100
    Capped Player SkStu's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Saskatchewan, Canada
    Posts
    11,364
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    2,146
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    3,400
    Thanked in
    1,804 Posts
    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.
    Last edited by SkStu; 07/02/2017 at 2:20 AM.

  22. Thanks From:


Page 5 of 29 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Trump lets off Miss America
    By First in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 26/12/2006, 8:37 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •