New Presidential (HA) Recruiter
Trump needs some better people around him, people who can talk some sense into him, maybe even prevent him from doing something that not only goes against our own constitution; but will have the opposite affect he intended. The terrorist social media recruiters have just scored big time and will have enough good stuff to add to their ranks for some time to come. He scared me before the election and he hasn't changed my opinion of him, he is a loose cannon and I only hope the people he puts around him can rein him in some. I agree with some of what he intends to do, but putting a complete ban on immigrants from Muslim countries is just stupid. But if you have or do business with the Trump family, you got a free pass, even though a lot of terrorists came from those countries.
|
But it is a little different from what is being reported, the sky is not falling, and we haven't nuked the middle east.
It will get appropriate pushback and be filtered through the courts and Congress. More detail and a less sensationalized look: http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...-fact-hysteria |
Quote:
The reports are the typical fake news that Trump accuses the media of. Well, I should be charitable, the fake news promulgated by anti-Trumpers and Democrats that the media reports (as if it were true.) |
the ban was just to feed the base their hunk of red meat..
Kelly ann conway statement just shows their willingness to do what ever they want in America.. framing it as a small price to pay .. the same thing happen after 9-11 massive surveillance “That’s 1 percent,” she pointed out. “And I think in terms of the upside being greater protection of our borders, of our people, it’s a small price to pay.” Trump’s executive order, which triggered the detention of permanent U.S. legal residents at airports across the country. Whats the price if your in that 1% what is the term Obama haters like to use Bad Optics... well This is Bad optics for the country World wide and thats not fake news .. the new mantra of the right when anyone is critical of Trump just cry fake news and look away national review has been called the "bible of American conservatism," has a far right bias. I feel this is more balanced view http://www.bbc.com/news/live/world-us-canada-38790842 |
Quote:
So, because someone has called National Review the "bible of American conservatism", anything in it ain't no good? That is pure ignorance. And having a bias does not mean you are wrong. If it does, then everybody is wrong. And the National Review is not "far right." It is often not only "moderate," but often moderately Progressive. Hey, it has been said that the BBC has a leftist bias--some claim "far" left. The National Review article that John cites is not giving an opinion about Trumps' executive order. It is clearly stating the parameters of the order and challenging anyone to actually read it. But instead of seeing that or responding to it, you ignore it and jump off the deep end of the false hysteria that it comments on. And nothing in the BBC article you cite disputes the National Review article which you disparage. |
Quote:
It seems your the one actively disparaging those news outlets you dont agree with The reports are the typical fake news that Trump accuses the media of. Well, I should be charitable, the fake news promulgated by anti-Trumpers and Democrats that the media reports (as if it were true.) |
This is totally a chuck of red meat. The order only lasts for 30 days. What happens after that? Do we go back to business as usual , or will be be thrust into Serious military action in Syria and will the ban be extended ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
Quote:
|
the snowflakes are having a rough first 100 days :)
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
He promised even more than this in his campaign. He is keeping some of his promise. When he appears not to be keeping a promise, the left likes to point that out, or fabricate the notion that he is not keeping a promise, to imply that he is not to be trusted. He can't even win for losing.
He kept his promise to his base As I pointed out (red meat) This promise was opposed all thru the election .. what he promised was un American the way i see it America is no safer today with his order in place then it was on Jan 1st its only safer in the minds of Some Americans .. who allow fear and alternative facts to form their conclusions , my post are bias no more than your own.. like you I only bring a different view to the table .. I have no illusions. I will not change anyone thinking here .. Trump “Only 109 people out of 325,000 were detained and held for questioning, from his exec order.. he needed a exec order for a 109 people... I feel safer all ready |
He has betrayed our ideals, America does not treat human beings with such utter contempt, we’ve never had such an indifference to others’ welfare and never inflicted such needless pain and suffering. Why are the Saudi’s or UAE excluded? Trump does not have a shred of empathy or compassion. He has only an insecure ego, quick to be insulted and to insult.
|
I get the whole "they will use this as a recruiting tool", but how do we stop that? Are we supposed to give ISIS everything they want, to deny them recruiting propaganda?
I have no doubt they will use this to recruit. I am sure they used the killing of Bin Laden as a recruiting tool, but I didn't hear anyone complain about that. We don't win this war by appeasing the jihadists. I know that much. |
Quote:
Obama banned refugees from war-torn Iraq for 6 months, no one on the left went berserk about what he was doing. Bill Clinton banned immigration from war-torn Sierra Leone, no one went berserk about what he was doing. A temporary ban, until we can figure out how to do it safely. Seems very, very consistent with the oath he just took. I don't like the ban, I especially don't like the religious litmus test. But if it was OK when Obama and Bill Clinton did it, I can only think of reason for the uproar over Trump doing the same thing. WDMSO: "the ban was just to feed the base their hunk of red meat.. " So what was it, when Obama and Bill Clinton did it? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Then so did Obama and Bill Clinton, who did the same thing. "America does not treat human beings with such utter contempt" So when Obama bombs Muslims with drones, you are OK with that. But it violates our ideals, to ensure that immigrants are vetted. "we’ve never had such an indifference to others’ welfare " I believe Obama was in charge when he chose to do absolutely nothing after Assad gassed these people. Where was your outrage at that indifference? "never inflicted such needless pain and suffering" again, Obama banned immigration from Iraq, and Bill Clinton banned immigration from Sierra Leone, both cases because of security threats. There was exactly zero liberal outrage over those bans. No one cared. "Trump does not have a shred of empathy or compassion" I don't like the guy Paul. But he's not Darth Vader either. Here is one of many, many things I could post. http://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=AwrBT...5webiUCJyOrBM- "He has only an insecure ego, quick to be insulted and to insult" That I agree with. The rest, not so much. |
Quote:
Nope, no double standard. |
Quote:
Trump claimed he discussed it w/various departments (state, homeland, etc) and they have all said he didn't. So the slow down w/Obama was as a result of an actual incident while Trump's is not. |
Quote:
A 6-month moratorium. Look it up. http://www.breitbart.com/jerusalem/2...rrorism-fears/ "Obama was as a result of an actual incident while Trump's is not" Oh, I see! So according to you, then, it's better to wait until after an incident happens and then respond, than it is to prevent a terrorist incident. I'd rather stop the incident before it happens. This is a brutal problem Paul. Like it or not, Trump's first priority is the welfare of Americans over the welfare of anyone else. That's not always easy. If Trump did this because he is a bigot, shame on him. If he did this because he genuinely feels there is a risk to letting refugees in, well then, that sounds an awful lot like what Obama and Clinton did. And that didn't stop Obama and Clinton from becoming liberal heroes. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
How so, Paul? I made my claim, I supported it with a link. I figured you'd like my source. When 95% of the media won't report anything that makes Obama look anything less than perfect, the options do get limited. If The New York Times took their profession seriously, they would have reported on it. I haven't heard anyone (except you) deny that Obama implemented a ban. Yes, the ban was enacted after it was alleged that terrorists had smuggled themselves in with the refugees. Seems to me, that alone, suggests Trump has a point. Isn't it better to be proactive than reactive, when it comes to terrorism? You made it sound like waiting until after the incident happened, is the better way to go. |
Quote:
Even his VP said it wasn't right - In 12/15 Pence said Calls to ban Muslims from entering the U.S. are offensive and unconstitutional. — Governor Mike Pence (@GovPenceIN) December 8, 2015 from a quick search. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.341c13bbba5f http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/01/30/...migration-ban/ http://heavy.com/news/2017/01/barack...n-immigration/ |
Paul, I have no doubt that there are differences between what Obama did and what Trump did. Different time, different circumstances, different men.
But there had to have been a lot of similarities. Trump is being criticized for increasing the suffering of the refugees, for causing families to be split apart. I have zero doubt that will happen as a result of his ban. I also have zero doubt that Obama's ban caused innocent people to suffer, and for families to be apart. My point is this...the criticism aimed at Trumps ban, don't seem to be limited to the parts of his ban that are different from what Obama did (other than the religious litmus test, but that seems to bother me more than it bothers most other people). You credited Obama for waiting until after there was a threat. Maybe that's valid praise. Maybe Trump jumped the gun a bit (for the sake of safety). But read the criticism most people are throwing around, and ask yourself if the majority of that criticism couldn't be equally applied to what Obama and Clinton did. As for the Christian preference over Muslims. I don't like it. But the fact is, one of those religions is inspiring violent jihad, the other isn't. I don't like that fact any more than you do, but it is still fact. we can ignore it, or we can deal with it. How many Christians did Obama bomb with drones? Zero. How is it "unconstitutional" to do anything to anyone who isn't a US citizen? Doesn't the constitution only apply to US citizens? |
Quote:
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/13/u...re-missed.html http://nypost.com/2016/11/28/active-...te-university/ |
Breitbart isn't a trustworthy source, but the Washington Post is a non-partisan fact machine. They keep their cards really close to their vests over at the Washington Post, no way of telling which way they lean.
Anyway, from your link: "the State Department stopped processing Iraq refugees for six months in 2011" That's not a ban? How is it different from an immigration ban? Please explain. Good luck. |
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:05 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 1998-20012 Striped-Bass.com