President Trump

NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program
Loco_local said:
Please tell me about all of the terrorist attacks made by Iranians.  Why were US citizens detained in the first place and why did it take a court order to get the detainees released?
This may be why they made it to the list:http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/02/politics/state-department-report-terrorism/


[quote author=article dated june 2016]he State Department on Thursday released its annual report on global terrorist activity, listing Iran as the top state sponsor of terrorism and labeling ISIS "the greatest threat globally."

The report also includes statistics on terrorist activity worldwide, and said 11,774 terrorist attacks in 92 countries occurred in 2015.[/quote]
 
Bannon explained his worldview well before it became official U.S. policy
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...fore-it-became-official-us-policy/2017/01/31/

On a March 2016 episode, Bannon said that restoring sovereignty meant reducing immigration. In his radio shows, he criticized the federal H-1B visa programs that permit U.S. companies to fill technical positions with workers from overseas.

The ?progressive plutocrats in Silicon Valley,? Bannon said, want unlimited ability to go around the world and bring people back to the United States. ?Engineering schools,? Bannon said, ?are all full of people from South Asia, and East Asia. .?.?. They?ve come in here to take these jobs.? Meanwhile, Bannon said, American students ?can?t get engineering degrees; they can?t get into these graduate schools because they are all foreign students. When they come out, they can?t get a job.?
 
Many people voted for Trump for 1 single issue, the Supreme court. I personally know several of my colleagues voted that way. This nomination delivers. Trump is truly a man of his words.
 
spootieho said:
tim said:
It couldn't be terrorism since the ban didn't include countries that terrorists came from when attacking in the US.
More groupthink talking points... 

Which group is it that? And why do you want to be so dismissive? And "groupthink" can be just as easily applied to what you say.

spootieho said:
To claim "it couldn't be terrorism" with your reasoning is simply ridiculous logical fallacy.  IMO, it's most certainly a fear of terrorism.  You can argue that it might not be well thought out.  You can argue that it might not be rational.  You can argue that it might not be reasonable.  It is, however, about terrorism. People are afraid of the terrorists and that's why we are here.

The list from an official terror list curated by the previous administration.  Don't like the list, well, you know who to blame.

There's a lot of terror going on in the world that doesn't make it to our news and/or country.  While the # of terrorist attacks in the US has been relatively low, there was well over 11,000 terrorist attacks worldwide in 2015.  People are getting beheaded daily in those countries.  They are constantly figuring out new ways to kill people.  Perhaps everyone needs to see all the pictures and videos get get a sense of what we are dealing with.  It's fucking scary.  In may of those countries, a good amount of people learn to hate the US.  I'm sure there's a good reason that the previous administration put those countries on a terror risk list. 

I wouldn't be surprised to see more countries added to the list for the temporary ban.  The ban will probably be over for some of those countries in a few months if/when they have come up with a better vetting process.

Okay, I will be more clear. I agree that this does come from a fear of terrorism. I think Trump trumped up this fear and then made this Executive Order to address the fear. Now his followers think he has done something to make them safe. They are no safer now. They weren't in danger before. The odds of you getting killed by a terrorist in this country are vanishingly small.

How does the Executive Order actually help prevent terrorist attacks here? We ALREADY do a ton of vetting. What more will be done? They speak of the 9/11 and San Bernadino attacks as reasons for this ban. Yet it would have done nothing to prevent those. So why do it? No one should feel safer from this.

Everything about this Order was poorly done. It is legally unclear. Even the administration wasn't sure about whom it should apply to. Parts have already been put on hold by courts. It has caused protests in this country. It makes us more disliked by other countries. This Order shows the incompetence of the administration.

Is it just coincidence that none of the Muslim-majority countries that Trump does business with (as far as we know) are on the list? Will any of them be ones that get added?


For the rest of my reply to you, please note that the things I listed in my paragraph of questions were about how much Trump lies. It was in reply to Movingup saying that liberals are relentless in making things up.

spootieho said:
tim said:
And what about those 3 million fraudulent votes?
Why are you so concerned about that? 

Are you serious?!? Why am I concerned about our President saying he lost the popular vote due to 3 million illegal votes? You are actually asking that? Why isn't EVERYONE concerned? What are the possibilities here?
1. Trump said this and believes it, even though it isn't true. We have a President that believes ridiculous conspiracies! What other insane ideas does he believe? It took him until November of last year to finally stop his crazy Obama birther talk. Will he cancel NASA since they faked the whole "man on the moon" thing? Will he send Tom Hanks to Vatican City?
2. Trump said this and doesn't believe it. We have a President that will lie even when everyone knows he is lying. This is not a small matter to lie about. There was no need to lie about it. How can we trust anything he says? Well, of course we cannot. He can't go more than 5 minutes without lying.
3. There actually were 3 million illegal votes. And somehow, they ALL went to Clinton. Holy crap! If this is true, this a problem bigger than anything our democracy has faced before. 3 MILLION votes!! We have TWENTY states with fewer people than that! How many states have fewer voters than that? If this is a true thing, we should all be terrified.


spootieho said:
tim said:
And what about him releasing his tax returns like he promised to do back in Feb 2015?
Because people can and will dishonestly attack every single detail on those tax returns.  I can't believe for one second that his opposition wants to see the returns for anything other than to attack him.  His opposition has been lying about him, over-exaggerating everything about him, twisting everything he does negatively.  If they want us to believe that they have good intentions, well that ship has sailed.  It's all about shitflinging at this point.

He should release his tax returns because, now try to follow...because HE SAID HE WOULD. I know, crazy, huh? That is reason enough.

If you need another reason, and I am pretty sure that you do (because Trump supporters are really good at excusing anything he says that is inconvenient), he needs to release his finances because otherwise we have no way to tell if any decision he makes is affected by his own financial interest. Since his finances are a black box, we cannot rule anything out. That is why previous Presidents have been transparent in this way. That is why those getting cabinet positions are legally required to disclose financial info. This is not hard to understand. I think you understand it, but you just don't want to believe it.

Of course, he should also divest himself from the companies he owns. He won't. He will make many decisions during his time in office that make him much, much richer. Some of those decisions will be bad for the USA.


spootieho said:
tim said:
And when he says the ban was working out great - just look at the airports?
Are you referring to the protestors?  They are no indicator of anything other than outrage.

The ban was rolled out pretty poorly, that's for sure.  Some people were unfortunately overlooked.  That should hopefully be resolved now. 

So you think there was nothing dishonest in his statement when he says it was great and you say it was rolled out poorly? Um, okay.


spootieho said:
tim said:
Now that he is President, his horrible behavior will only get worse. He is an embarrassment to the USA.
He has been doing what the people of the United States elected him to do.  NBC is reporting that more Americans support the ban than not. 

It was a minority of the country that elected him. And that still doesn't mean he does not behave horribly. He is still an embarrassment.
 
Perspective said:
Damn Tim, I admire your patience dealing with Trump fanboys. I lost mine months ago...
Am I a Trump fanboy?  Just an FYI... I voted against Trump. 

What frustrates me is how many people have their heads up their teams asses and are unwilling and unable to critically think.
 
spootieho said:
Perspective said:
Damn Tim, I admire your patience dealing with Trump fanboys. I lost mine months ago...
Am I a Trump fanboy?  Just an FYI... I voted against Trump. 

What frustrates me is how many people have their heads up their teams asses and are unwilling and unable to critically think.

LOL. Do you even have to ask that question???
 
tim said:
spootieho said:
tim said:
Now that he is President, his horrible behavior will only get worse. He is an embarrassment to the USA.
He has been doing what the people of the United States elected him to do.  NBC is reporting that more Americans support the ban than not. 

It was a minority of the country that elected him. And that still doesn't mean he does not behave horribly. He is still an embarrassment.
He is an embarassment to you and the crybabies who didn't get the person they wanted elected.  You might not agree, but that's how they look and it's why they be taken seriously. 

Again.  NBC is reporting that more Americans support the ban than not.
 
tim said:
spootieho said:
tim said:
And when he says the ban was working out great - just look at the airports?
Are you referring to the protestors?  They are no indicator of anything other than outrage.

The ban was rolled out pretty poorly, that's for sure.  Some people were unfortunately overlooked.  That should hopefully be resolved now. 

So you think there was nothing dishonest in his statement when he says it was great and you say it was rolled out poorly? Um, okay.
Dishonest?  You didn't even answer my question. 

"Great" is a subjective word.  It's an opinion word.  I don't think it was "great".  So because I have a different opinion than him, I should label his opinion dishonest?  Do you see how absurd you are willing to go?
 
Before discussing this 90 day travel pause with anyone, I ask these two questions:

1) Did you protest the Obama / Clinton 6 month immigration pause for Iraqi's back in 2011?

2) Did you protest the "wet foot / dry foot" rule change for Cuba citizens, as well as the 90 or so Cuban's forcibly returned to their homeland right before Obama left office?

If the answer is "no" (more often than not it's... "wut"?) then we have nothing to talk about.  If you aren't aware of or did not raise a ruckus about either of these events, you've forfeited your credibility to complain about what the Rabid Orangutan is doing right now.
 
Soylent Green Is People said:
Before discussing this 90 day travel pause with anyone, I ask these two questions:

1) Did you protest the Obama / Clinton 6 month immigration pause for Iraqi's back in 2011?

2) Did you protest the "wet foot / dry foot" rule change for Cuba citizens, as well as the 90 or so Cuban's forcibly returned to their homeland right before Obama left office?

If the answer is "no" (more often than not it's... "wut"?) then we have nothing to talk about.  If you aren't aware of or did not raise a ruckus about either of these events, you've forfeited your credibility to complain about what the Rabid Orangutan is doing right now.

Just let me clarify your point in "Obama did it too" comparison. Although he did indeed halt the refugee program, he did not bar green card holders or those that had a visa from the country. He also didn't close the gates on those that has already gone through the lengthy vetting/visa process.





 
I don't waste my time talking to the extreme left. One guy who post here frequently is a typical example. They want open borders, socialism, everyone free to do whatever they want (it's always about rights), they want conservatism to fail because conservatism is based on the founding principles of Christianity.

I am not agreeing everything Trump said or did. However, it is a swamp in D.C. created by Obama. I am glad it is being drained. The democrats and liberals are planting their tombstone for 2018 with all these crazy protests and obstructions.

Search this "Nancy Pelosi caught on a hot mic". It's ridiculous.
 
Agree with you here.

I looked up the hot mic though. Doesn't seem like a big deal. He is a Muslim.
 
tim said:
spootieho said:
tim said:
It couldn't be terrorism since the ban didn't include countries that terrorists came from when attacking in the US.
More groupthink talking points... 

Which group is it that? And why do you want to be so dismissive? And "groupthink" can be just as easily applied to what you say.
Had I been dismissive, I wouldn't have continued my response and clarified.  And yes, I've caught you in the past using groupthink talking points, so I think it's fair to start pointing them out.  I may be harsher on you because you sound more eloquent than others.

Will more vetting make us safer?  Maybe.  Will more vetting make us feel safer?  Yes.

Countries that were a terror threat in 2001 might not be considered a terror threat today.  That was 16 years ago and those countries on the list may be different than they were in 2001.  What happened in 2001, though, taught us that we should be more diligent about these things in the future. 

Yes most Americans are afraid of refugees from these countries.  The fear may be unreasonable.  The fear may not be rational.  It's what the people want.  Americans want more vetting of people from those regions and I don't think more vetting is unreasonable. 

In July of 2001, I was studying the middle east and wrote a paper about how people over there think of the USA.  They didn't like our involvement way back then.  Bombs that were made in the USA were killing innocent people.  Schools were teaching kids to hate the USA.  This was before 9/11.  Seeing the tension building up over there, I predicted that the world trade center would likely get attacked soon (just months before it happened). There was a lot less hate in 2001 than there is today.  The region is a lot more brutal and savage today.  If we can do more vetting, I am all for it. 

tim said:
Everything about this Order was poorly done. It is legally unclear. Even the administration wasn't sure about whom it should apply to. Parts have already been put on hold by
courts. It has caused protests in this country. It makes us more disliked by other countries. This Order shows the incompetence of the administration.
I agree that this order was poorly done and shows incompetence and sloppiness.  It should have been more well thought out.

I do think a lot of of the countries that are whining should mind their own business.  They can prioritize those refugees, if it's an issue.

I'm not completely against all aspects of the order, though.





 
Even big supporters agree this could have been thought through a bit longer. People in the air, GC holders, and "Special Purpose Visa" holders should have been exempted. That was clearly wrong.

The pause was rolled out Friday. By today, Wednesday, most of the issues listed above have been clarified. That's a pretty quick remedy relatively speaking. More still to come, instead of just sitting on this until protests die down.

The DMV is a "broken system". Do we think it's a good idea to just let everyone drive without a license? The Tang Menace needs to streamline the process, put those legally here on a simple  fast track to resolution of their immigration needs, and vet the bee-geeezus out of anyone, from anywhere, at this point forward. There will be support for a clear and simple immigration system. It will take plenty of cash to do so, as it would for any government agency... even and eventuality the DMV as well.

My .02c
 
1) Did you protest the Obama / Clinton 6 month immigration pause for Iraqi's back in 2011?

No, I honestly don't remember 2011, but if I heard it described like this I wouldn't have protested

The Obama administration conducted a review in 2011 of the vetting procedures applied to citizens of a single country (Iraq) and then only to refugees and applicants for Special Immigrant Visas (SIVs), created by Congress to help Iraqis (and later Afghans) who supported the United States in those conflicts. The Trump executive order, on the other hand, applies to seven countries with total population more than 130 million and to virtually every category of immigrant other than diplomats, including tourists and business travelers.
Not a ban. Contrary to Trump?s Sunday statement and the repeated claims of his defenders, the Obama administration did not ?ban visas for refugees from Iraq for six months.? For one thing, refugees don?t travel on visas. More importantly, while the flow of Iraqi refugees slowed significantly during the Obama administration?s review, refugees continued to be admitted to the United States during that time, and there was not a single month in which no Iraqis arrived here. In other words, while there were delays in processing, there was no outright ban.

3. Grounded in specific threat. The Obama administration?s 2011 review came in response to specific threat information, including the arrest in Kentucky of two Iraqi refugees, still the only terrorism-related arrests out of about 130,000 Iraqi refugees and SIV holders admitted to the United States. Thus far, the Trump administration has provided no evidence, nor even asserted, that any specific information or intelligence led to its draconian order.
http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/01/30...-did-nothing-similar-to-your-immigration-ban/
 
Loco_local said:
1) Did you protest the Obama / Clinton 6 month immigration pause for Iraqi's back in 2011?

No, I honestly don't remember 2011, but if I heard it described like this I wouldn't have protested

The Obama administration conducted a review in 2011 of the vetting procedures applied to citizens of a single country (Iraq) and then only to refugees and applicants for Special Immigrant Visas (SIVs), created by Congress to help Iraqis (and later Afghans) who supported the United States in those conflicts. The Trump executive order, on the other hand, applies to seven countries with total population more than 130 million and to virtually every category of immigrant other than diplomats, including tourists and business travelers.
Not a ban. Contrary to Trump?s Sunday statement and the repeated claims of his defenders, the Obama administration did not ?ban visas for refugees from Iraq for six months.? For one thing, refugees don?t travel on visas. More importantly, while the flow of Iraqi refugees slowed significantly during the Obama administration?s review, refugees continued to be admitted to the United States during that time, and there was not a single month in which no Iraqis arrived here. In other words, while there were delays in processing, there was no outright ban.

3. Grounded in specific threat. The Obama administration?s 2011 review came in response to specific threat information, including the arrest in Kentucky of two Iraqi refugees, still the only terrorism-related arrests out of about 130,000 Iraqi refugees and SIV holders admitted to the United States. Thus far, the Trump administration has provided no evidence, nor even asserted, that any specific information or intelligence led to its draconian order.
http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/01/30...-did-nothing-similar-to-your-immigration-ban/

Edited to add: i know why I don't remember. Even Breitbart ssid it was done quietly and the media didn't report until teo years later.  The ban was in response to a specific threat, not because the president's advisor wanted to ban all muslims (and eventually all non-white Christians)
http://www.breitbart.com/jerusalem/...q-refugee-program-six-months-terrorism-fears/
 
morekaos said:
Recall the Superscoopers and don your fire retardant suits for all the hair that will be set alight after tomorrow's prime time Supreme Court appointment!!  This is gonna be great, fabulous and classy!!

Quick...put her hair out!!! That didn't take long. Absurdity to the point of comedy


Host Jake Tapper asked for her take on the brand-new Neil Gorsuch nomination to the Supreme Court, and she made a wild overstatement: ?If you breathe air, drink water, eat food, take medicine, or in any other way interact with the courts, this is a very bad decision.? What? Excuse me? Wouldn?t it seem natural to ask Pelosi how precisely it is that Gorsuch opposes air, water, food, and medicine? She uncorked this line twice.

http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/tim-graham/2017/02/01/cnn-lets-pelosi-smear-gorsuch-opposed-air-water-food-and-medicine


 
Back
Top