America under President Trump

Argus · February 9, 2017

4 minutes ago, Omni said:

Being bigoted against an entire group, some of which may also be bigoted, is still bigotry. Progressives get that.

Progressives had no problem attacking the Catholic Church on the same issues they now defend the Muslim religion from attack on, despite the fact the Muslim beliefs are far more worse than that of the Catholics.

Omni · February 9, 2017

2 minutes ago, Argus said:

Progressives had no problem attacking the Catholic Church on the same issues they now defend the Muslim religion from attack on, despite the fact the Muslim beliefs are far more worse than that of the Catholics.

Thank you for proving my point, once again.

?Impact · February 9, 2017

1 hour ago, Argus said:

are now enthusiastic supporters of a group of people who largely despise gays

Despite being told over and over again that that defending peoples rights is not the same thing as supporting them, you refuse to listen and now have added the 'enthusiastic' qualifier as if that somehow makes your argument any more true.

Michael Hardner · February 9, 2017

4 hours ago, Argus said:

As Harris said about this " you don't have to be a fascist or a racist or even a Trumpian, to not want to import people into your society who think cartoonists should be killed for drawing the prophet. That's a totally rational thing not to want. And the Left has been demonizing anyone who wants to talk about this."

Absolutely, keep those people out.

Topaz · February 10, 2017

19 hours ago, Omni said:

Apparently Donald has raised his daughter to be just as hypocritical as is he. "We're gonna bring jobs back". Ha, frickin ha.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/ivanka-trumps-best-selling-fashion-line-is-manufactured-in-china-and-vietnam-a7153376.html

EuroKrym · February 10, 2017

On 16.01.2017 at 9:50 PM, segnosaur said:

Ok, latest Trumpism.... Now he wants to come up a new arms deal with Russia to limit nuclear weapons, in exchange for lifting sanctions.

Al right, lets take a look at what's wrong with that particular proposal, shall we?

- Trump said he wants to limit arms, but it was only a short time ago that he wanted to increase American nuclear capability. Someone should explain to him that such rapid shifts in policy can be detrimental to American foreign policy

- So he wants to limit nuclear weapons... why exactly should he offer the lifting of sanctions as part of that? The sanctions were implemented in response to Russia's actions against Crimea and Ukraine... they had nothing to do with Russia's nuclear stockpile. And limiting the number of nuclear weapons should be reward enough by itself.

I think its pretty clear what's happening here... Trump is Putin's patsy. He wants to do something nice for his Master, so he makes up a fake excuse (negotiating a nuclear treaty) in order to justify the lifting of sanctions.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-arms-deal-idUSKBN14Z0YE

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/trump-nuclear-arms-race-russia-232944

TAURIdA - FREEd POLITICAL EURO ZONE !
CRIMEA POSSIBLE to still SALVAGE!

EUROVISION IN #EUROCRIMEA !
TROOPS BEING WITHDRAWN, EURO INTRODUCED!

Better a small earthquake, than great war.
Or? ...

http://eurokrym.ho.ua/01ta/

Argus · February 10, 2017

20 hours ago, ?Impact said:

Despite being told over and over again that that defending peoples rights is not the same thing as supporting them, you refuse to listen and now have added the 'enthusiastic' qualifier as if that somehow makes your argument any more true.

Sorry if the truth hurts. No one here is physically attacking Muslims, or calling for them to be expelled, or even calling for any action against them. So what infuriates the Left here is not defending people's rights, it is defending Islam and its followers from criticism with regard to their social values and beliefs. That is what the Left does here. And that logically makes those who do so repeatedly and insistently and even angrily - dedicated supporters of Islam and all it stands for.

Argus · February 10, 2017

19 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Absolutely, keep those people out.

And how do you do that without a values test? Without even an interview?

I'm pretty sure Trump will have a values test for new immigrants, assuming the US doesn't already have one.

Edited February 10, 2017 by Argus

?Impact · February 10, 2017

48 minutes ago, Argus said:

Sorry if the truth hurts. No one here is physically attacking Muslims, or calling for them to be expelled, or even calling for any action against them. So what infuriates the Left here is not defending people's rights, it is defending Islam and its followers from criticism with regard to their social values and beliefs. That is what the Left does here. And that logically makes those who do so repeatedly and insistently and even angrily - dedicated supporters of Islam and all it stands for.

Sorry, but I criticize all religions, including Islam. I criticize the immoral practices of people, including Muslims. What I don't do is lump 1.7 billion people into the same barrel and deny them their right because a small subset of a group they share a religion with commit immoral crimes. I don't deny Christians their rights either because of the many immoral acts committed by other Christians.

It sounds like you are the one who is infuriated by the repeated and insistent illogical angry arguments you make, without once listening to what others are really saying.

Argus · February 10, 2017

1 hour ago, ?Impact said:

Sorry, but I criticize all religions, including Islam. I criticize the immoral practices of people, including Muslims. What I don't do is lump 1.7 billion people into the same barrel and deny them their right because a small subset of a group they share a religion with commit immoral crimes. I don't deny Christians their rights either because of the many immoral acts committed by other Christians.

It sounds like you are the one who is infuriated by the repeated and insistent illogical angry arguments you make, without once listening to what others are really saying.

There is that leftist meme of 'a smalls subset'. You hear it all the time from the Left as they frantically try to shield Islam from condemnation. It's the insistence that if a Muslim isn't actively and vocally supporting terrorism or actually pulling the trigger or setting off explosives they're a moderate.

Nobody is buying it. It isn't a small subset of Islam which wants to kill gays, or which thinks blasphemers should die, or who believes women are and must always be legally inferior to men. It's the majority, in fact, as we've seen from the polls, and from behavior in the Islamic world and among Islamic countries. When a Saudi poll found 92% felt ISIS conformed to Muslim laws and values that simply showed how nasty some of the stuff in the Koran is that you guys insist nobody in the Muslim world really supports except (a small subset).

I invite you to go to ANY Muslim nation and curse the prophet and find out how quickly that small subset will surround you and start beating on you.

Edited February 10, 2017 by Argus

Omni · February 10, 2017

Looks like Trump is abandoning the idea of taking a run at the SCOTUS. Perhaps he finally got some good legal advice which he finally decided to pay attention to.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/10/politics/immigration-executive-order-white-house/

-TSS- · February 11, 2017

So, the US justice-system has proved to be Trump-proof?

Unlike we are made to believe, I'm sure most lawyers were very happy when Trump got elected. Why wouldn't they have been? A lot of work ahead to be expected and a lot of money to be charged.

OftenWrong · February 11, 2017

2 hours ago, Omni said:

Looks like Trump is abandoning the idea of taking a run at the SCOTUS. Perhaps he finally got some good legal advice which he finally decided to pay attention to.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/10/politics/immigration-executive-order-white-house/

It doesn't say that. It says he is not pursuing it now, but may choose to later. They have a few other things to put in place before making their final move. Clearly the moves made by Trump's opponents are 100% political and have nothing to do with any sense of "what's right", since Trump was only extending a ban that already existed thanks to President Obama.

Were the 7 nations identified in Donald Trump's travel ban named by Barack Obama as terror hotbeds?

The Obama-signed law contains provisions that restrict travel to the United States for people who lived in or visited Iran, Iraq, Sudan, or Syria since March 2011. The law was soon expanded by Obama’s Department of Homeland Security to cover Libya, Somalia, and Yemen. They were identified in the agency’s announcement as "countries of concern," a phrase used in the law.

Dems had no issue with this approach by Obama before, but they certainly are grandstanding on it now. I guess even Donald Trump underestimated how corrupt the system is.

Omni · February 11, 2017

1 hour ago, OftenWrong said:

It doesn't say that. It says he is not pursuing it now, but may choose to later. They have a few other things to put in place before making their final move. Clearly the moves made by Trump's opponents are 100% political and have nothing to do with any sense of "what's right", since Trump was only extending a ban that already existed thanks to President Obama.

Were the 7 nations identified in Donald Trump's travel ban named by Barack Obama as terror hotbeds?

The Obama-signed law contains provisions that restrict travel to the United States for people who lived in or visited Iran, Iraq, Sudan, or Syria since March 2011. The law was soon expanded by Obama’s Department of Homeland Security to cover Libya, Somalia, and Yemen. They were identified in the agency’s announcement as "countries of concern," a phrase used in the law.

Dems had no issue with this approach by Obama before, but they certainly are grandstanding on it now. I guess even Donald Trump underestimated how corrupt the system is.

He's going to try a rewrite. Let's see how far that gets through the judiciary. Maybe some good advice would be for him to include some countries who's people have actually hurt the US. Saudi perhaps?

Wilber · February 11, 2017

If he doesn't get good legal advice and actually listen to it, the result will be the same.

OftenWrong · February 11, 2017

17 minutes ago, Omni said:

He's going to try a rewrite. Let's see how far that gets through the judiciary. Maybe some good advice would be for him to include some countries who's people have actually hurt the US. Saudi perhaps?

This is like the other Trump thread but oh well.

Because that in fact is not the reason the ban was put in place. In 2011 the CIA identified some countries that are unable to provide the quality of information necessary for US visa applications.

Executive Order Section 1, Purpose:

"In order to protect Americans, the United States must ensure that those admitted to this country do not bear hostile attitudes toward it and its founding principles. The United States cannot, and should not, admit those who do not support the Constitution, or those who would place violent ideologies over American law. In addition, the United States should not admit those who engage in acts of bigotry or hatred (including "honor" killings, other forms of violence against women, or the persecution of those who practice religions different from their own) or those who would oppress Americans of any race, gender, or sexual orientation. "

Sounds pretty fair to me so far. What problem do you have with above?

" Sec. 3. Suspension of Issuance of Visas and Other Immigration Benefits to Nationals of Countries of Particular Concern.

(a) The Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence, shall immediately conduct a review to determine the information needed from any country to adjudicate any visa, admission, or other benefit under the INA (adjudications) in order to determine that the individual seeking the benefit is who the individual claims to be and is not a security or public-safety threat. "

Trump calls for a review of the requirements of information needed, to set a kind of minimum standard.

The all so exciting section c-

" (c) To temporarily reduce investigative burdens on relevant agencies during the review period, to ensure the proper review and maximum utilization of available resources for the screening of foreign nationals, and to ensure that adequate standards are established to prevent infiltration by foreign terrorists or criminals, I hereby proclaim that the immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States of aliens from countries referred to would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and I hereby suspend entry into the United States, as immigrants and nonimmigrants, of such persons for 90 days from the date of this order (excluding those foreign nationals traveling on diplomatic visas, North Atlantic Treaty Organization visas, C-2 visas for travel to the United Nations, and G-1, G-2, G-3, and G-4 visas). "

Oh my! So unethical. How dare he impose a 90 day temporary ban on a subset of applicants while the new administration works to improve on the standards of security information. They should let the terrorists come right on in...

Omni · February 11, 2017

1 minute ago, OftenWrong said:

Oh my! So unethical. How dare he impose a 90 day temporary ban on a subset of applicants while the new administration works to improve on the standards of security information. They should let the terrorists come right on in...

I think the courts have clearly explained their findings. It's called "unconstitutional"

OftenWrong · February 11, 2017

Just now, Omni said:

I think the courts have clearly explained their findings. It's called "unconstitutional"

The so-called judges are politicians, the politics, judges.

Omni · February 11, 2017

3 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

The so-called judges are politicians, the politics, judges.

And of course that phraseology is what pissed off Trump's SCOTUS appointee, and likely why he's now afraid to go there lest he lose yet again.

OftenWrong · February 11, 2017

9 minutes ago, Omni said:

And of course that phraseology is what pissed off Trump's SCOTUS appointee, and likely why he's now afraid to go there lest he lose yet again.

To paraphrase some smart dude, "a good judge is one who makes the right judgement, even when they personally may disagree with it". Because, the law. And the law says Trump has the power to enact this ban. What these "judges" have done, is unpresidented.

Edited February 11, 2017 by OftenWrong

Omni · February 11, 2017

3 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

To paraphrase some smart dude, "a good judge is one who makes the right judgement, even when they personally may disagree with it". Because, the law. And the law says Trump has the power to enact this ban. What these "judges" have done, is unpresidented.

He does not have that power because he has failed to prove there is any valid threat to US security from the named nations. and which is why I suspect he has been advised to steer clear of the SC.

OftenWrong · February 11, 2017

59 minutes ago, Omni said:

He does not have that power because he has failed to prove there is any valid threat to US security from the named nations. and which is why I suspect he has been advised to steer clear of the SC.

Trump does not need the SC. He has a way to circumvent the whole problem, and get it put in place right away. Simply pass another executive order.

"President Donald Trump said Friday that he could issue a new executive order on immigration after an appeals court refused to reinstate restrictions on entry to the United States from seven predominantly Muslim nations.

"The unfortunate part is that it takes time statutorily ... we'll win that battle," Trump said. "But we also have a lot of other options, including just filing a brand new order on Monday."

Asked what changes could be made if a new order were issued, the president replied, "very little."

"Very little..."

Edited February 11, 2017 by OftenWrong

Omni · February 11, 2017

2 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

Trump does not need the SC. He has a way to circumvent the whole problem, and get it put in place right away. Simply pass another executive order.

"President Donald Trump said Friday that he could issue a new executive order on immigration after an appeals court refused to reinstate restrictions on entry to the United States from seven predominantly Muslim nations.

"The unfortunate part is that it takes time statutorily ... we'll win that battle," Trump said. "But we also have a lot of other options, including just filing a brand new order on Monday."

Asked what changes could be made if a new order were issued, the president replied, "very little."

"Very little..."

If you like to buy what Trump tells you, I have some waterfront I'd like to sell you. Trust me it's well worth what I'm asking.

OftenWrong · February 11, 2017

23 minutes ago, Omni said:

If you like to buy what Trump tells you, I have some waterfront I'd like to sell you. Trust me it's well worth what I'm asking.

President Trump has made his billions off of smart real estate deals. He's like, worlds' richest real estate agent. Next he will demonstrate how a more direct, blunt form of leadership gets things done. Quickly and efficiently... the changes are coming more quickly than you can imagine.

Omni · February 11, 2017

3 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

President Trump has made his billions off of smart real estate deals. He's like, worlds' richest real estate agent. Next he will demonstrate how a more direct, blunt form of leadership gets things done. Quickly and efficiently... the changes are coming more quickly than you can imagine.

Trump inherited his fortune and went bankrupt a number of times and made a lot of money by simply using a loophole in the tax system to keep from paying any taxes for many years. The only real changes I have seen so far are a lot of court cases challenging his authority to make silly EO's.