New Presidential (HA) Recruiter

[Got Stripers]

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.

[JohnR]

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

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by JohnR

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

As usual, you're being polite and charitable to those with whom you disagree when you characterize the facts as being only a "little" different than what is being reported. The salient facts are "very" different.

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.)

[wdmso]

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

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

the ban was just to feed the base their hunk of red meat..

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.

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.

It was not part of his executive order to do that.

Whats the price if your in that 1%

Conway pointed out the price: "the upside being greater protection of our borders, of our people,"


what is the term Obama haters like to use Bad Optics...

I thought "Bad Optics" was a term that media likes to use when it criticizes various administrations, usually Republican ones. I guess it's bad if "Obama haters" use it.

well This is Bad optics for the country World wide and thats not fake news ..

Who said it was fake news? And should we determine security policies by what some consider bad optics over actual security. Optics, for the most part, are appearance rather than reality. Security should be based on reality not appearance.

the new mantra of the right when anyone is critical of Trump just cry fake news and look away

That's a weak straw man argument. Trump has been called a purveyor of fake news, as has been social media, or anybody that the main stream media is either in competition with or just wants to discredit. Many on the "right" are critical of Trump and are more likely to call his mouthings as fake than most of those on the "left" are likely to nail Hillary, or Obama, et al. as fakers.

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

There you go again, discrediting the presentation of facts because of who states them, not because the report is unfactual or wrong.

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.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by detbuch

There you go again, discrediting the presentation of facts because of who states them, not because the report is unfactual or wrong.

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.

Funny I only showed the source .. and how they lean i didn't not comment on the information contained or dispute what they wrote .. I disparaged nothing I was very clear.. its bad optics and an imaginary threat at best "It was not part of his executive order to do that." his order his responsibility to provide clear direction i guess that didnt happen

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.)

[Nebe]

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

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Funny I only showed the source

You did more than that. You said "the ban was just to feed the base their hunk of red meat.." How, exactly, is one to understand that? Just some unbiased, impartial, non prejudicial aside? "Only" an objective statement of what the ban was "just" about?


.. and how they lean i didn't not comment on the information contained or dispute what they wrote .. I disparaged nothing I was very clear.. its bad optics and an imaginary threat at best

If that was "only" what" you did, why bother even posting it? Was it "only" some offhand, irrelevant aside letting us know that you think the National Review has a far right bias? If you did not wish to dispute or disparage what it's author wrote, what was the point of telling us what you judge to be its bias? Your assertion that you did not comment on the information contained is obviously false on its face. Your post implied that the article, therefore its content, was tainted by bias. Or else why point out (comment) that you think the National Review is biased?

That you didn't dispute what the article said is kind of typical of how you respond to content of various posts--you don't. You often comment on the messenger rather than the message.

I disparaged nothing I was very clear.. its bad optics and an imaginary threat at best

You disparaged the ban (I take it you mean the ban here not the article--it is often hard to follow the sequence and attributions in your pastiche style of writing) by calling it bad optics and (the danger of importing large numbers of refugees from certain areas--not the ban itself?) an imaginary threat at best.

You seem to prefer some perceived "balance" in the BBC article to a perceived lack of it in the National Review article. I didn't find much balance in the BBC's offering, and I don't think the National Review's required balance since it was pointing out misperceptions about the ban. There is no "balance" between what is in the ban and what isn't.

Nor do I find much, if any, "balance" in your post. It seems rather one-sided to me.

"It was not part of his executive order to do that." his order his responsibility to provide clear direction i guess that didnt happen

Clear direction was provided as the National Review article noted: "However, there are reports that the ban is being applied even to green-card holders. This is madness. The plain language of the order doesn’t apply to legal permanent residents of the U.S., and green-card holders have been through round after round of vetting and security checks. The administration should intervene, immediately, to stop misapplication." The Administration DID intervene to correct the misapplication. Just as in the Constitution, clear direction is provided to the Federal Government, but Courts "interpret" it incorrectly. You don't seem to mind when the Courts do that, you even think it's just a matter of opinion and OK when you like the outcome of judicial "misapplication" and it's fine for it to become the law of the land.

It seems your the one actively disparaging those news outlets you dont agree with

You mean like when I applied the "what's good for the goose is good for the gander" adage in comparing your disparaging the National Review"s article because of what some think of its bias to what one might think of the BBC's article because of what some might think of its bias? Yeah, I did that.

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.)

Thanks for repeating what I said. I agree with it.

[scottw]

the snowflakes are having a rough first 100 days

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by scottw

the snowflakes are having a rough first 100 days

They loved it when the President and Congress and the Court ran roughshod over the Constitution so long as their guys were in power. They were warned that if Federal powers were not cut back to Constitutional limitations, there could be a time when those they detested would have control. That time has arrived. So now it's their turn to squirm over and about "unconstitutional orders". . . and to punctuate that with diatribes against "Nazis" and "dictators" . . . violence and mayhem against the "bigots" . . . shouting down the free speech of the "fascists" at university lectures and conservative rallies. It's a fascinating yet predicted reaction.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by wdmso

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

no where over the last couple of years will you find more critical analysis and down right rejection of Trump and Trumpism on a daily basis than the National Review....

[scottw]

Originally Posted by detbuch

They loved it when the President and Congress and the Court ran roughshod over the Constitution so long as their guys were in power. They were warned that if Federal powers were not cut back to Constitutional limitations, there could be a time when those they detested would have control. That time has arrived. So now it's their turn to squirm over and about "unconstitutional orders". . . and to punctuate that with diatribes against "Nazis" and "dictators" . . . violence and mayhem against the "bigots" . . . shouting down the free speech of the "fascists" at university lectures and conservative rallies. It's a fascinating yet predicted reaction.

wait till Congress rams some legislation through that they don't care for in similar fashion to the deceitful way Obamacare was born.....

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by scottw

the snowflakes are having a rough first 100 days

I heard there's a 60 day waitlist to adopt a puppy and Crayola stock is through the roof.

[wdmso]

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

[PaulS]

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.

[Jim in CT]

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.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

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.

Paul S, WDMSO...

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?

[scottw]

Originally Posted by PaulS

He has betrayed our ideals,

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

So what was it, when Obama and Bill Clinton did it?

brilliant strategy

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

no where over the last couple of years will you find more critical analysis and down right rejection of Trump and Trumpism on a daily basis than the National Review....

That is absolutely, 100% accurate. The NR has been brutal to Trump, non-stop criticism through the entire campaign, they pulled no punches.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

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.

"He has betrayed our ideals"

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.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

brilliant strategy

And even worthy of the Nobel Peace Prize, apparently.

Nope, no double standard.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

So what was it, when Obama and Bill Clinton did it?

I was talking about Trump in general and not specifically to the recent ban but I believe that there was never a 'ban" by Obama. If I remember correctly, we discovered someone who had been admitted from Iraq was later found to have some terrorist connection or something similiar so they decided to look at all of the people who were previously admitted and to impose new harsher checks and that delayed those in the pipeline. I think the entry of green card and visa holders was not impacted also.

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.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

I was talking about Trump in general and not specifically to the recent ban but I believe that there was never a 'ban" by Obama. If I remember correctly, we discovered someone who had been admitted from Iraq was later found to have some terrorist connection or something similiar so they decided to look at all of the people who were previously admitted and to impose new harsher checks and that delayed those in the pipeline. I think the entry of green card and visa holders was not impacted also.

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.

"I believe that there was never a 'ban" by Obama."

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.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"I believe that there was never a 'ban" by Obama."

A 6-month moratorium. Look it up. http://www.breitbart.com/jerusalem/2...rrorism-fears/Breitbart find another source - one that is honest. As I said it did not effect people w/green cards or visas like this did.

"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.Increased vetting was put into place after that incident to prevent future incidents (which have not happened).

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.

Do some research and you will see it is VASTLY different from what Obama did. You're getting your info. from a source that has been dishonest in the past.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Do some research and you will see it is VASTLY different from what Obama did. You're getting your info. from a source that has been dishonest in the past.

"Do some research and you will see it is VASTLY different from what Obama did"

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.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"Do some research and you will see it is VASTLY different from what Obama did"

How so, Paul? I made my claim, I supported it with a link.

.

I told you - visas and greencards. Plus Pres. Trump said he was going to give preference to Christians.

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/

[Jim in CT]

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?

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Increased vetting was put into place after that incident to prevent future incidents (which have not happened).

I guess these don't count....

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/13/u...re-missed.html

http://nypost.com/2016/11/28/active-...te-university/

[Jim in CT]

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.