Re: Donald Trump watch

by McLewis Wed Feb 01, 2017 12:25 pm

Until the countries who actually produced people who carried out terrorist attacks on us are added to this list, this EO is a political stunt and one that is having real consequences. As long as it allows Christians in without issues, it's a religious test, which is unconstitutional.

A woman, from my state, who had a green card, just died while waiting to get back into the US, something that shouldn't have happened. I don't know the details around her health, but that she died away from her home and family due to this ban is just unconscionable to me.

And before the right wingers here jump on this. I would've said the exact damn thing had Obama tried this shit (yes, I'm aware of 2011, which was reactive while this EO is proactive). I would've said the same had Clinton, McCain, Romney, Sanders or any other would be POTUS done it as well. Because I favor consistency and transparency. The Trump admin lacks both.

by Lucifer Wed Feb 01, 2017 2:05 pm

Am I the only one thinking the Republicans/right wingists should the people most worried about the way Trump is doing business. If this guy keeps on doing this shit for 4 years, I don't think the Republicans will be in position to ask for vote next time around.

by BarrileteCosmico Wed Feb 01, 2017 2:12 pm

Article about what mclewis was talking about: http://www.fox2detroit.com/news/local-news/232856168-story

****ing horrible. I hope they start another impeachment process out of this, although I suspect it would be hard to prove that she would be alive otherwise regardless of what the son says.

by Myesyats Wed Feb 01, 2017 2:22 pm

It's not the first ban that targets a specific group of people implemented by the US. There's been a couple before that had way more serious consequences.

Don't know if you are aware of this but Roosevelt (a democrat BTW) banned Jewish refugees during WWII (majority of them at least) which resulted in them returning to Europe where certain death was only a matter of time, in the Holocaust.

I don't know where I'm going with this, I agree that the ban is ridiculous but this is not the end of the world and certainly not the last movement targeting a specific group of people.

by BarrileteCosmico Wed Feb 01, 2017 2:39 pm

Don't know if you are aware of this but Roosevelt (a democrat BTW) banned Jewish refugees during WWII (majority of them at least) which resulted in them returning to Europe where certain death was only a matter of time, in the Holocaust.

... and history has judged him severely for that, what's your point?

by Myesyats Wed Feb 01, 2017 2:49 pm

Just saying it's not the end of the world, not the worst of acts of this kind and definitely not the last act of this type.

Does this ban mean death to all the people affected? Because that's how you make it sound.

It's ridiculous but it's temporary and not that tragic in effect as it may actually seem.

I'm not defending Trump's actions but I am also not trying to overreact.

by BarrileteCosmico Wed Feb 01, 2017 3:11 pm

So something is only horrible if it leads to deaths (even though this already has)?

If this had only been for refugee visas in the approval process it would have been something else entirely, but to retroactively make it apply for people that were already in the US legally created all sorts of problems. People not able to get back to their homes, families, work, etc is absolutely tragic. One grandmother dying because she can't access healthcare in her home as she can't re-enter the country is tragic too. It's cruel and the only reason it happened is that Trump implemented this like an absolute amateur.

by Myesyats Wed Feb 01, 2017 3:21 pm

BarrileteCosmico wrote:So something is only horrible if it leads to deaths (even this already has)?

No. I clearly said it's ridiculous(/horrible) but it's not as tragic as you make it sound and not permanent (90 days).

BTW, it appears to me that permanent residents and green card holders can board flights to the USA but they may face extra screening.

by MJ Wed Feb 01, 2017 3:41 pm

He did this without his cabinet and that's why it was so poorly implemented. He's rash and narcissistic and he's learning the hard way that the American people won't take this bullsh** lying down.

FWIW, American historian Allan Lichtman (pseudo famous for predicting every election since 1984) predicted, in November, that Trump getting impeached was more or less a certainty given his "playing fast and loose" with the law.

Myesyats wrote:
No. I clearly said it's ridiculous(/horrible) but it's not as tragic as you make it sound.

It's tragic if just one person dies because of an unconstitutional executive order implemented haphazardly and hundreds, if not thousands, are illegally denied access to their families, jobs and homes.

by Myesyats Wed Feb 01, 2017 3:48 pm

Yes, I agree. They were informed about it waaay before-hand though. Trump mentioned it would happen *still in 2015*.

by Myesyats Wed Feb 01, 2017 4:58 pm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GF9B-9PH4qQ

"White supremacy"

Didnt they just have a black president for 8 years? hmm

In other news, hasn't Obama imposed a ban on Iraqis back in 2011? Double standards much? Or is it racist to say anything about Obama because he's black?

by MJ Wed Feb 01, 2017 5:49 pm

No, he didn't tell permanent residents with green cards and visa holders that they would be banned from returning to the country if they were abroad when he took office. It's illegal. The fact that it was suspended so quickly and is going to result in a legal battle is fact enough of that. So he didn't go "BTW, banning all Muzzies around Jan 2017 so make sure ur home by den k? k."

And Obama's 2011 policy affected only Iraq and it wasn't actually a ban. The influx of Iraqi refugees was slowed down as the vetting process was reviewed but it was over the span of 6 months and during that time there wasn't a month in which no Iraqis arrived on US soil. It was also in response to a specific threat and was the subject of proper policy making and not the BS Trump's White House political officials drafted up quickly.

Source: http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/01/30/sorry-mr-president-the-obama-administration-did-nothing-similar-to-your-immigration-ban/

by Myesyats Wed Feb 01, 2017 7:13 pm

I sincerely hope this ban is proven to be impermissible.

However, a ban is a ban and it can be argued that Trump's policy is also in response to a specific threat.

by DuringTheWar Wed Feb 01, 2017 9:30 pm

Dear oh dear, the mask is slipping off of the blood thirsty authoritarian Marxists who have disguised their ideology in identity politics.

Don't have a reasoned debate, instead of labelling people sexist for disagreeing about muh wage gap, punch their f****** face instead!. Not that I encourage it of course, I just won't condemn it *wink

Despicable stuff.

by Guest Thu Feb 02, 2017 5:08 am

DuringTheWar wrote:Dear oh dear, the mask is slipping off of the blood thirsty authoritarian Marxists who have disguised their ideology in identity politics.

Don't have a reasoned debate, instead of labelling people sexist for disagreeing about muh wage gap, punch their f****** face instead!. Not that I encourage it of course, I just won't condemn it *wink

Despicable stuff.

If Sir Winston Churchill had a reasoned debate instead of punching Germany in the face would you be speaking German right now? Smile

by DuringTheWar Thu Feb 02, 2017 5:45 am

Betty La Fea wrote:
DuringTheWar wrote:Dear oh dear, the mask is slipping off of the blood thirsty authoritarian Marxists who have disguised their ideology in identity politics.

Don't have a reasoned debate, instead of labelling people sexist for disagreeing about muh wage gap, punch their f****** face instead!. Not that I encourage it of course, I just won't condemn it *wink

Despicable stuff.

If Sir Winston Churchill had a reasoned debate instead of punching Germany in the face would you be speaking German right now?

You'd most certainly be calling Churchill a Nazi if he were around today, he was a misogynist, islamophobic, all round conservative guy. So clearly no reasoning with Churchill, better to punch him in the face!

In other news, 'antifa', the goons mobilised into action by these horrible pseudo-intellectuals, seem to have beaten a milo yiannopoulos speech attendee to near death (or maybe death) with shovels or some other objects, in between punching and macing random people.

The warning signs have been there a while, the left have been getting more and more authoritarian on college campuses across the west in recent years.

by McLewis Thu Feb 02, 2017 12:02 pm

Yes, because what happens in California absolutely represents my views and beliefs here in Michigan. Take that shit somewhere else, bub.

Yes, I lean left, but that doesn't mean I condone violence, rioting and attacking people. The right loves to paint everyone with a broad brush and then act hurt when the same is done to them.

You forget, we now have an alt-right movement in this country. They have made it no secret that their agenda benefits whites above all else. The leader of their movement has our President's ear and now sits higher in influence then every military commander. While I don't support rioting and attacking people, I also don't support having someone like Bannon so close to the leader of the free world and the world's most powerful military. That is significantly more dangerous.

by Guest Thu Feb 02, 2017 12:14 pm

DuringTheWar wrote:
Betty La Fea wrote:
DuringTheWar wrote:Dear oh dear, the mask is slipping off of the blood thirsty authoritarian Marxists who have disguised their ideology in identity politics.

Don't have a reasoned debate, instead of labelling people sexist for disagreeing about muh wage gap, punch their f****** face instead!. Not that I encourage it of course, I just won't condemn it *wink

Despicable stuff.

If Sir Winston Churchill had a reasoned debate instead of punching Germany in the face would you be speaking German right now?

You'd most certainly be calling Churchill a Nazi if he were around today, he was a misogynist, islamophobic, all round conservative guy. So clearly no reasoning with Churchill, better to punch him in the face!

In other news, 'antifa', the goons mobilised into action by these horrible pseudo-intellectuals, seem to have beaten a milo yiannopoulos speech attendee to near death (or maybe death) with shovels or some other objects, in between punching and macing random people.

The warning signs have been there a while, the left have been getting more and more authoritarian on college campuses across the west in recent years.

Churchill actually was a better killer than Nazis. The millions of dead Bengalis in India, on his watch, from Britain refusing their aid during their famine was testament to this.

Reasoned debate against someone willing to subjugate you doesnt work. Neville Chamberlain told you this:

You cant reason with a man suffering from the lunacy of being gassed during WWI. The same way you cant reason with a degenerate(conservatives own views of a man who lays with another man) whose sole discourse in this nation is calling a black woman an ape, and speaking to a bunch of kids in universities who would better be served using such time studying Math.

by Myesyats Thu Feb 02, 2017 2:20 pm

McLewis wrote:Yes, because what happens in California absolutely represents my views and beliefs here in Michigan. Take that shit somewhere else, bub.

Yes, I lean left, but that doesn't mean I condone violence, rioting and attacking people. The right loves to paint everyone with a broad brush and then act hurt when the same is done to them.

You forget, we now have an alt-right movement in this country. They have made it no secret that their agenda benefits whites above all else. The leader of their movement has our President's ear and now sits higher in influence then every military commander. While I don't support rioting and attacking people, I also don't support having someone like Bannon so close to the leader of the free world and the world's most powerful military. That is significantly more dangerous.

So basically you are mad because a right-winger is at power? That's not news. It's obvious.

Obama has done far worse things than this Muslim ban that you don't even know about because he hid it from you and BS medias like CNN fed you with sugar instead.

by BarrileteCosmico Thu Feb 02, 2017 3:22 pm

BarrileteCosmico wrote:Article about what mclewis was talking about: http://www.fox2detroit.com/news/local-news/232856168-story

****ing horrible. I hope they start another impeachment process out of this, although I suspect it would be hard to prove that she would be alive otherwise regardless of what the son says.

So this has turned out to be fake. Mea culpa.

by Freeza Thu Feb 02, 2017 3:33 pm

BarrileteCosmico wrote:
BarrileteCosmico wrote:Article about what mclewis was talking about: http://www.fox2detroit.com/news/local-news/232856168-story

****ing horrible. I hope they start another impeachment process out of this, although I suspect it would be hard to prove that she would be alive otherwise regardless of what the son says.

So this has turned out to be fake. Mea culpa.

Is Fox liberal media now?

These journalists should really do some groundwork

by Nishankly Thu Feb 02, 2017 3:58 pm

Don't even start about the Famines mate, The only famine documented to International causes was later one when 2 million perished (yeah right only 2). In total approx 10 million (This is probably a small number) perished because the these famines and the inability of Britain inability to govern us over the course of their "Raj".

As the thread was..

by Myesyats Thu Feb 02, 2017 5:19 pm

BarrileteCosmico wrote:
BarrileteCosmico wrote:Article about what mclewis was talking about: http://www.fox2detroit.com/news/local-news/232856168-story

****ing horrible. I hope they start another impeachment process out of this, although I suspect it would be hard to prove that she would be alive otherwise regardless of what the son says.

So this has turned out to be fake. Mea culpa.

Islam (Quran) permits lying to deceive others for a "greater purpose". In this case, lying in order to put Trump in a bad light. You feel for it, so it proves that the teachings are working, I suppose?

Quran (16:106) - Establishes that there are circumstances that can "compel" a Muslim to tell a lie.

Quran (3:28) - This verse tells Muslims not to take those outside the faith as friends, unless it is to "guard themselves" against danger, meaning that there are times when a Muslim should appear friendly to non-Muslims, even though they should not feel that way.

Quran (40:28) - A man is introduced as a believer, but one who had to "hide his faith" among those who are not believers.

Quran (3:54) - "And they (the disbelievers) schemed, and Allah schemed (against them): and Allah is the best of schemers." The Arabic word used here for scheme (or plot) is makara, which literally means 'deceit'. If Allah is supremely deceitful toward unbelievers, then there is little basis for denying that Muslims are allowed to do the same.

by MJ Thu Feb 02, 2017 5:35 pm

Do you want to turn this into a thread of cherry-picking verses from various holy books as if it's damning evidence of what individuals of a certain faith are like?

by Myesyats Thu Feb 02, 2017 5:48 pm

It's far easier to act as if critics of Islam have a problem with Muslims as people than it is to accept the uncomfortable truth that Islam is different.

Do you not follow Quran as a true Muslim?

by Freeza Thu Feb 02, 2017 6:01 pm

Myesyats wrote:It's far easier to act as if critics of Islam have a problem with Muslims as people than it is to accept the uncomfortable truth that Islam is different.

Do you not follow Quran as a true Muslim?

by Sponsored content