Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
In the countries affected by the EO, the broken down car with a woman and childen could easily and even probably be a pretence for a suicide bomber (especially if you are a member of the US military). In Canada and many other countries, not so much.if it were a woman hitch hiker, in the pouring rain, next to her broken down car, with one child in her arms, and another little child sopping wet holding her skirt... as she waved her hand and put her thumb up, hoping and praying for help from a stranger... a stranger that wouldn't kill her or her kids, then YES, I would stop and help her, and take that chance!Let's use a better analogy. Suppose you are driving down a road a see a hitch hiker who really looks like he needs a ride. However, there is a 0.1% probability that he will rape and murder you if you give him a ride. Do you give him a ride? After all, most hitch hikers are harmless.Either way Joe, it still makes no sense...let me take out the religion indicator....it still seems rather fruitless and just silly....The eo does not use religion as an indicator.To me, it seems like a very foolish and silly move and statement that the admin is making with it....
It's like saying, because there is a future murderer who is a Christian living somewhere in your city or your State, that everyone who is a Christian in your city or your State should be locked up... or punished some how because there is a future murderer of the same faith, living near them, somewhere....???
It's like saying, because there is a future murderer living somewhere in your city or State, that everyone in your city or your State should be locked up... or punished some how because there is a future murderer living near you/them, somewhere....???
In simpler words, even though I know that a hitch hiker could end up killing me, not all hitch hikers would weigh as an equal threat in my brain...
Trumps purpose was never a Muslim ban
“How did the president decide the seven countries?” she asked. “Okay, talk to me.”
“I'll tell you the whole history of it,” Giuliani responded eagerly. “So when [Trump] first announced it, he said, 'Muslim ban.' He called me up. He said, 'Put a commission together. Show me the right way to do it legally.' "
And refugees from countries not affected by the EO do not weigh as an equal threat in Trump's brain. Agree or disagree, he has been elected as president to be the person to weigh such threats, and that is supported by law.if it were a woman hitch hiker, in the pouring rain, next to her broken down car, with one child in her arms, and another little child sopping wet holding her skirt... as she waved her hand and put her thumb up, hoping and praying for help from a stranger... a stranger that wouldn't kill her or her kids, then YES, I would stop and help her, and take that chance!Let's use a better analogy. Suppose you are driving down a road a see a hitch hiker who really looks like he needs a ride. However, there is a 0.1% probability that he will rape and murder you if you give him a ride. Do you give him a ride? After all, most hitch hikers are harmless.Either way Joe, it still makes no sense...let me take out the religion indicator....it still seems rather fruitless and just silly....The eo does not use religion as an indicator.To me, it seems like a very foolish and silly move and statement that the admin is making with it....
It's like saying, because there is a future murderer who is a Christian living somewhere in your city or your State, that everyone who is a Christian in your city or your State should be locked up... or punished some how because there is a future murderer of the same faith, living near them, somewhere....???
It's like saying, because there is a future murderer living somewhere in your city or State, that everyone in your city or your State should be locked up... or punished some how because there is a future murderer living near you/them, somewhere....???
In simpler words, even though I know that a hitch hiker could end up killing me, not all hitch hikers would weigh as an equal threat in my brain...
I've noticed where the disconnect is with conservatives and progressives on trumps statements about banning Muslims. The issue is the context.
Conservatives see Trumps statements on banning Muslim in the context he made them. Trump saw the immigration issue as a national security issue. We need to keep Jihadists from entering the country to protect ourselves. His first instinct was to ban Muslims to keep jihadists out and was foolish enough to say it because of his political inexperience. He was quickly told he couldn't do that and revised his position. Why?
Because his intent was never banning Muslims. His intent was national security. Banning Muslims was his mean to those ends until he realized he couldn't do that. Then he focused on more tailored approach.
Progressives on the other hand think his intention is to ban Muslims. Presumably because he is a hatefilled islamophobe who wants to oppress minorities or some nonsense like that. They are completely losing the obvious national security issue with jihadists.
To conservatives his foolish statements were a means to an end: national security. Why? Because that's the context the statements were made. To progressives his statements were the ends and he is going to implement them by any means.
But trump never cared about banning Muslims in and of itself. Here are five reasons at prove that:
1) the context he made his statements were always wit national security in mind.
2) his executive order does not attempt to ban Muslims or any other group based on religion. it does not even attempt to apply to all muslims
3) it applies to all people in the affected countries regardless to religious iviewpoints
4) removing Iraq from the list when they complied with what the administration requested shows they never cared about banning Muslims.
5) the order has always been temporary, which makes no sense if the purpose was secretly to ban Muslims.
Then again he doesn't want to stop Saudis, even though more Saudis have killed people in the US than any other nationals from other Muslim countries.
Are there any at all coming from Saudi Arabia? If not, then there is no need for a ban.I've noticed where the disconnect is with conservatives and progressives on trumps statements about banning Muslims. The issue is the context.
Conservatives see Trumps statements on banning Muslim in the context he made them. Trump saw the immigration issue as a national security issue. We need to keep Jihadists from entering the country to protect ourselves. His first instinct was to ban Muslims to keep jihadists out and was foolish enough to say it because of his political inexperience. He was quickly told he couldn't do that and revised his position. Why?
Because his intent was never banning Muslims. His intent was national security. Banning Muslims was his mean to those ends until he realized he couldn't do that. Then he focused on more tailored approach.
Progressives on the other hand think his intention is to ban Muslims. Presumably because he is a hatefilled islamophobe who wants to oppress minorities or some nonsense like that. They are completely losing the obvious national security issue with jihadists.
To conservatives his foolish statements were a means to an end: national security. Why? Because that's the context the statements were made. To progressives his statements were the ends and he is going to implement them by any means.
But trump never cared about banning Muslims in and of itself. Here are five reasons at prove that:
1) the context he made his statements were always wit national security in mind.
2) his executive order does not attempt to ban Muslims or any other group based on religion. it does not even attempt to apply to all muslims
3) it applies to all people in the affected countries regardless to religious iviewpoints
4) removing Iraq from the list when they complied with what the administration requested shows they never cared about banning Muslims.
5) the order has always been temporary, which makes no sense if the purpose was secretly to ban Muslims.
Then again he doesn't want to stop Saudis, even though more Saudis have killed people in the US than any other nationals from other Muslim countries.
Were not trying to stop the Saudis because its not a Muslim ban. Its a temporary ban on travel from countries where it is difficult to vet people properly. There is not such a problem with Saudi Arabians, and there are very few Refugees that I know of coming out of Saudi Arabia. WHY is this so hard to understand?
I've noticed where the disconnect is with conservatives and progressives on trumps statements about banning Muslims. The issue is the context.
Conservatives see Trumps statements on banning Muslim in the context he made them. Trump saw the immigration issue as a national security issue. We need to keep Jihadists from entering the country to protect ourselves. His first instinct was to ban Muslims to keep jihadists out and was foolish enough to say it because of his political inexperience. He was quickly told he couldn't do that and revised his position. Why?
Because his intent was never banning Muslims. His intent was national security. Banning Muslims was his mean to those ends until he realized he couldn't do that. Then he focused on more tailored approach.
Progressives on the other hand think his intention is to ban Muslims. Presumably because he is a hatefilled islamophobe who wants to oppress minorities or some nonsense like that. They are completely losing the obvious national security issue with jihadists.
To conservatives his foolish statements were a means to an end: national security. Why? Because that's the context the statements were made. To progressives his statements were the ends and he is going to implement them by any means.
But trump never cared about banning Muslims in and of itself. Here are five reasons at prove that:
1) the context he made his statements were always wit national security in mind.
2) his executive order does not attempt to ban Muslims or any other group based on religion. it does not even attempt to apply to all muslims
3) it applies to all people in the affected countries regardless to religious iviewpoints
4) removing Iraq from the list when they complied with what the administration requested shows they never cared about banning Muslims.
5) the order has always been temporary, which makes no sense if the purpose was secretly to ban Muslims.
Then again he doesn't want to stop Saudis, even though more Saudis have killed people in the US than any other nationals from other Muslim countries.
Were not trying to stop the Saudis because its not a Muslim ban. Its a temporary ban on travel from countries where it is difficult to vet people properly. There is not such a problem with Saudi Arabians, and there are very few Refugees that I know of coming out of Saudi Arabia. WHY is this so hard to understand?
Are there any at all coming from Saudi Arabia? If not, then there is no need for a ban.I've noticed where the disconnect is with conservatives and progressives on trumps statements about banning Muslims. The issue is the context.
Conservatives see Trumps statements on banning Muslim in the context he made them. Trump saw the immigration issue as a national security issue. We need to keep Jihadists from entering the country to protect ourselves. His first instinct was to ban Muslims to keep jihadists out and was foolish enough to say it because of his political inexperience. He was quickly told he couldn't do that and revised his position. Why?
Because his intent was never banning Muslims. His intent was national security. Banning Muslims was his mean to those ends until he realized he couldn't do that. Then he focused on more tailored approach.
Progressives on the other hand think his intention is to ban Muslims. Presumably because he is a hatefilled islamophobe who wants to oppress minorities or some nonsense like that. They are completely losing the obvious national security issue with jihadists.
To conservatives his foolish statements were a means to an end: national security. Why? Because that's the context the statements were made. To progressives his statements were the ends and he is going to implement them by any means.
But trump never cared about banning Muslims in and of itself. Here are five reasons at prove that:
1) the context he made his statements were always wit national security in mind.
2) his executive order does not attempt to ban Muslims or any other group based on religion. it does not even attempt to apply to all muslims
3) it applies to all people in the affected countries regardless to religious iviewpoints
4) removing Iraq from the list when they complied with what the administration requested shows they never cared about banning Muslims.
5) the order has always been temporary, which makes no sense if the purpose was secretly to ban Muslims.
Then again he doesn't want to stop Saudis, even though more Saudis have killed people in the US than any other nationals from other Muslim countries.
Were not trying to stop the Saudis because its not a Muslim ban. Its a temporary ban on travel from countries where it is difficult to vet people properly. There is not such a problem with Saudi Arabians, and there are very few Refugees that I know of coming out of Saudi Arabia. WHY is this so hard to understand?
I've noticed where the disconnect is with conservatives and progressives on trumps statements about banning Muslims. The issue is the context.
Conservatives see Trumps statements on banning Muslim in the context he made them. Trump saw the immigration issue as a national security issue. We need to keep Jihadists from entering the country to protect ourselves. His first instinct was to ban Muslims to keep jihadists out and was foolish enough to say it because of his political inexperience. He was quickly told he couldn't do that and revised his position. Why?
Because his intent was never banning Muslims. His intent was national security. Banning Muslims was his mean to those ends until he realized he couldn't do that. Then he focused on more tailored approach.
Progressives on the other hand think his intention is to ban Muslims. Presumably because he is a hatefilled islamophobe who wants to oppress minorities or some nonsense like that. They are completely losing the obvious national security issue with jihadists.
To conservatives his foolish statements were a means to an end: national security. Why? Because that's the context the statements were made. To progressives his statements were the ends and he is going to implement them by any means.
But trump never cared about banning Muslims in and of itself. Here are five reasons at prove that:
1) the context he made his statements were always wit national security in mind.
2) his executive order does not attempt to ban Muslims or any other group based on religion. it does not even attempt to apply to all muslims
3) it applies to all people in the affected countries regardless to religious iviewpoints
4) removing Iraq from the list when they complied with what the administration requested shows they never cared about banning Muslims.
5) the order has always been temporary, which makes no sense if the purpose was secretly to ban Muslims.
Then again he doesn't want to stop Saudis, even though more Saudis have killed people in the US than any other nationals from other Muslim countries.
Were not trying to stop the Saudis because its not a Muslim ban. Its a temporary ban on travel from countries where it is difficult to vet people properly. There is not such a problem with Saudi Arabians, and there are very few Refugees that I know of coming out of Saudi Arabia. WHY is this so hard to understand?
Yes, I am aware of that. I did not mean to imply that is was. I was agreeing with your previous post.Are there any at all coming from Saudi Arabia? If not, then there is no need for a ban.I've noticed where the disconnect is with conservatives and progressives on trumps statements about banning Muslims. The issue is the context.
Conservatives see Trumps statements on banning Muslim in the context he made them. Trump saw the immigration issue as a national security issue. We need to keep Jihadists from entering the country to protect ourselves. His first instinct was to ban Muslims to keep jihadists out and was foolish enough to say it because of his political inexperience. He was quickly told he couldn't do that and revised his position. Why?
Because his intent was never banning Muslims. His intent was national security. Banning Muslims was his mean to those ends until he realized he couldn't do that. Then he focused on more tailored approach.
Progressives on the other hand think his intention is to ban Muslims. Presumably because he is a hatefilled islamophobe who wants to oppress minorities or some nonsense like that. They are completely losing the obvious national security issue with jihadists.
To conservatives his foolish statements were a means to an end: national security. Why? Because that's the context the statements were made. To progressives his statements were the ends and he is going to implement them by any means.
But trump never cared about banning Muslims in and of itself. Here are five reasons at prove that:
1) the context he made his statements were always wit national security in mind.
2) his executive order does not attempt to ban Muslims or any other group based on religion. it does not even attempt to apply to all muslims
3) it applies to all people in the affected countries regardless to religious iviewpoints
4) removing Iraq from the list when they complied with what the administration requested shows they never cared about banning Muslims.
5) the order has always been temporary, which makes no sense if the purpose was secretly to ban Muslims.
Then again he doesn't want to stop Saudis, even though more Saudis have killed people in the US than any other nationals from other Muslim countries.
Were not trying to stop the Saudis because its not a Muslim ban. Its a temporary ban on travel from countries where it is difficult to vet people properly. There is not such a problem with Saudi Arabians, and there are very few Refugees that I know of coming out of Saudi Arabia. WHY is this so hard to understand?
Saudi Arabia is not on the list
I've noticed where the disconnect is with conservatives and progressives on trumps statements about banning Muslims. The issue is the context.
Conservatives see Trumps statements on banning Muslim in the context he made them. Trump saw the immigration issue as a national security issue. We need to keep Jihadists from entering the country to protect ourselves. His first instinct was to ban Muslims to keep jihadists out and was foolish enough to say it because of his political inexperience. He was quickly told he couldn't do that and revised his position. Why?
Because his intent was never banning Muslims. His intent was national security. Banning Muslims was his mean to those ends until he realized he couldn't do that. Then he focused on more tailored approach.
Progressives on the other hand think his intention is to ban Muslims. Presumably because he is a hatefilled islamophobe who wants to oppress minorities or some nonsense like that. They are completely losing the obvious national security issue with jihadists.
To conservatives his foolish statements were a means to an end: national security. Why? Because that's the context the statements were made. To progressives his statements were the ends and he is going to implement them by any means.
But trump never cared about banning Muslims in and of itself. Here are five reasons at prove that:
1) the context he made his statements were always wit national security in mind.
2) his executive order does not attempt to ban Muslims or any other group based on religion. it does not even attempt to apply to all muslims
3) it applies to all people in the affected countries regardless to religious iviewpoints
4) removing Iraq from the list when they complied with what the administration requested shows they never cared about banning Muslims.
5) the order has always been temporary, which makes no sense if the purpose was secretly to ban Muslims.
Then again he doesn't want to stop Saudis, even though more Saudis have killed people in the US than any other nationals from other Muslim countries.
Were not trying to stop the Saudis because its not a Muslim ban. Its a temporary ban on travel from countries where it is difficult to vet people properly. There is not such a problem with Saudi Arabians, and there are very few Refugees that I know of coming out of Saudi Arabia. WHY is this so hard to understand?
So, Afghanistan is easy to vet people, and Iran isn't?
I've noticed where the disconnect is with conservatives and progressives on trumps statements about banning Muslims. The issue is the context.
Conservatives see Trumps statements on banning Muslim in the context he made them. Trump saw the immigration issue as a national security issue. We need to keep Jihadists from entering the country to protect ourselves. His first instinct was to ban Muslims to keep jihadists out and was foolish enough to say it because of his political inexperience. He was quickly told he couldn't do that and revised his position. Why?
Because his intent was never banning Muslims. His intent was national security. Banning Muslims was his mean to those ends until he realized he couldn't do that. Then he focused on more tailored approach.
Progressives on the other hand think his intention is to ban Muslims. Presumably because he is a hatefilled islamophobe who wants to oppress minorities or some nonsense like that. They are completely losing the obvious national security issue with jihadists.
To conservatives his foolish statements were a means to an end: national security. Why? Because that's the context the statements were made. To progressives his statements were the ends and he is going to implement them by any means.
But trump never cared about banning Muslims in and of itself. Here are five reasons at prove that:
1) the context he made his statements were always wit national security in mind.
2) his executive order does not attempt to ban Muslims or any other group based on religion. it does not even attempt to apply to all muslims
3) it applies to all people in the affected countries regardless to religious iviewpoints
4) removing Iraq from the list when they complied with what the administration requested shows they never cared about banning Muslims.
5) the order has always been temporary, which makes no sense if the purpose was secretly to ban Muslims.
Then again he doesn't want to stop Saudis, even though more Saudis have killed people in the US than any other nationals from other Muslim countries.
Were not trying to stop the Saudis because its not a Muslim ban. Its a temporary ban on travel from countries where it is difficult to vet people properly. There is not such a problem with Saudi Arabians, and there are very few Refugees that I know of coming out of Saudi Arabia. WHY is this so hard to understand?
So, Afghanistan is easy to vet people, and Iran isn't?
It could be the Government of Afghanistan is more cooperative in helping. What makes you feel Iran would do anything to cooperate with us? when they threaten our ships and planes?
I've noticed where the disconnect is with conservatives and progressives on trumps statements about banning Muslims. The issue is the context.
Conservatives see Trumps statements on banning Muslim in the context he made them. Trump saw the immigration issue as a national security issue. We need to keep Jihadists from entering the country to protect ourselves. His first instinct was to ban Muslims to keep jihadists out and was foolish enough to say it because of his political inexperience. He was quickly told he couldn't do that and revised his position. Why?
Because his intent was never banning Muslims. His intent was national security. Banning Muslims was his mean to those ends until he realized he couldn't do that. Then he focused on more tailored approach.
Progressives on the other hand think his intention is to ban Muslims. Presumably because he is a hatefilled islamophobe who wants to oppress minorities or some nonsense like that. They are completely losing the obvious national security issue with jihadists.
To conservatives his foolish statements were a means to an end: national security. Why? Because that's the context the statements were made. To progressives his statements were the ends and he is going to implement them by any means.
But trump never cared about banning Muslims in and of itself. Here are five reasons at prove that:
1) the context he made his statements were always wit national security in mind.
2) his executive order does not attempt to ban Muslims or any other group based on religion. it does not even attempt to apply to all muslims
3) it applies to all people in the affected countries regardless to religious iviewpoints
4) removing Iraq from the list when they complied with what the administration requested shows they never cared about banning Muslims.
5) the order has always been temporary, which makes no sense if the purpose was secretly to ban Muslims.
Then again he doesn't want to stop Saudis, even though more Saudis have killed people in the US than any other nationals from other Muslim countries.
Were not trying to stop the Saudis because its not a Muslim ban. Its a temporary ban on travel from countries where it is difficult to vet people properly. There is not such a problem with Saudi Arabians, and there are very few Refugees that I know of coming out of Saudi Arabia. WHY is this so hard to understand?
Also, if it's an issue of vetting, then what's been the problem before. How many people have got in that were a threat to the US when they go it? The people who have attacked are ones who WOULD HAVE PASSED THE VETTING PROCESS when they came in.
Okay, perhaps Afghanistan should be added to the EO. Will that help or hurt the EO to pass judicial muster?I've noticed where the disconnect is with conservatives and progressives on trumps statements about banning Muslims. The issue is the context.
Conservatives see Trumps statements on banning Muslim in the context he made them. Trump saw the immigration issue as a national security issue. We need to keep Jihadists from entering the country to protect ourselves. His first instinct was to ban Muslims to keep jihadists out and was foolish enough to say it because of his political inexperience. He was quickly told he couldn't do that and revised his position. Why?
Because his intent was never banning Muslims. His intent was national security. Banning Muslims was his mean to those ends until he realized he couldn't do that. Then he focused on more tailored approach.
Progressives on the other hand think his intention is to ban Muslims. Presumably because he is a hatefilled islamophobe who wants to oppress minorities or some nonsense like that. They are completely losing the obvious national security issue with jihadists.
To conservatives his foolish statements were a means to an end: national security. Why? Because that's the context the statements were made. To progressives his statements were the ends and he is going to implement them by any means.
But trump never cared about banning Muslims in and of itself. Here are five reasons at prove that:
1) the context he made his statements were always wit national security in mind.
2) his executive order does not attempt to ban Muslims or any other group based on religion. it does not even attempt to apply to all muslims
3) it applies to all people in the affected countries regardless to religious iviewpoints
4) removing Iraq from the list when they complied with what the administration requested shows they never cared about banning Muslims.
5) the order has always been temporary, which makes no sense if the purpose was secretly to ban Muslims.
Then again he doesn't want to stop Saudis, even though more Saudis have killed people in the US than any other nationals from other Muslim countries.
Were not trying to stop the Saudis because its not a Muslim ban. Its a temporary ban on travel from countries where it is difficult to vet people properly. There is not such a problem with Saudi Arabians, and there are very few Refugees that I know of coming out of Saudi Arabia. WHY is this so hard to understand?
So, Afghanistan is easy to vet people, and Iran isn't?
It could be the Government of Afghanistan is more cooperative in helping. What makes you feel Iran would do anything to cooperate with us? when they threaten our ships and planes?
So, the govt of Afghanistan is cooperating. Does this mean that all Afghans who get into the US aren't going to then get radicalized inside the US?
I've noticed where the disconnect is with conservatives and progressives on trumps statements about banning Muslims. The issue is the context.
Conservatives see Trumps statements on banning Muslim in the context he made them. Trump saw the immigration issue as a national security issue. We need to keep Jihadists from entering the country to protect ourselves. His first instinct was to ban Muslims to keep jihadists out and was foolish enough to say it because of his political inexperience. He was quickly told he couldn't do that and revised his position. Why?
Because his intent was never banning Muslims. His intent was national security. Banning Muslims was his mean to those ends until he realized he couldn't do that. Then he focused on more tailored approach.
Progressives on the other hand think his intention is to ban Muslims. Presumably because he is a hatefilled islamophobe who wants to oppress minorities or some nonsense like that. They are completely losing the obvious national security issue with jihadists.
To conservatives his foolish statements were a means to an end: national security. Why? Because that's the context the statements were made. To progressives his statements were the ends and he is going to implement them by any means.
But trump never cared about banning Muslims in and of itself. Here are five reasons at prove that:
1) the context he made his statements were always wit national security in mind.
2) his executive order does not attempt to ban Muslims or any other group based on religion. it does not even attempt to apply to all muslims
3) it applies to all people in the affected countries regardless to religious iviewpoints
4) removing Iraq from the list when they complied with what the administration requested shows they never cared about banning Muslims.
5) the order has always been temporary, which makes no sense if the purpose was secretly to ban Muslims.
Then again he doesn't want to stop Saudis, even though more Saudis have killed people in the US than any other nationals from other Muslim countries.
Were not trying to stop the Saudis because its not a Muslim ban. Its a temporary ban on travel from countries where it is difficult to vet people properly. There is not such a problem with Saudi Arabians, and there are very few Refugees that I know of coming out of Saudi Arabia. WHY is this so hard to understand?
Also, if it's an issue of vetting, then what's been the problem before. How many people have got in that were a threat to the US when they go it? The people who have attacked are ones who WOULD HAVE PASSED THE VETTING PROCESS when they came in.
The new administration wants to do their due dilligence and set up their own process. It doesn't matter what went on before, Trump has no control over that but if something were to ever happen, Trump needs to be able to tell himself he did all that he could. Slacking and relying simply what existed before is unacceptable.
I would hope if you were President, you would feel the same way
I've noticed where the disconnect is with conservatives and progressives on trumps statements about banning Muslims. The issue is the context.
Conservatives see Trumps statements on banning Muslim in the context he made them. Trump saw the immigration issue as a national security issue. We need to keep Jihadists from entering the country to protect ourselves. His first instinct was to ban Muslims to keep jihadists out and was foolish enough to say it because of his political inexperience. He was quickly told he couldn't do that and revised his position. Why?
Because his intent was never banning Muslims. His intent was national security. Banning Muslims was his mean to those ends until he realized he couldn't do that. Then he focused on more tailored approach.
Progressives on the other hand think his intention is to ban Muslims. Presumably because he is a hatefilled islamophobe who wants to oppress minorities or some nonsense like that. They are completely losing the obvious national security issue with jihadists.
To conservatives his foolish statements were a means to an end: national security. Why? Because that's the context the statements were made. To progressives his statements were the ends and he is going to implement them by any means.
But trump never cared about banning Muslims in and of itself. Here are five reasons at prove that:
1) the context he made his statements were always wit national security in mind.
2) his executive order does not attempt to ban Muslims or any other group based on religion. it does not even attempt to apply to all muslims
3) it applies to all people in the affected countries regardless to religious iviewpoints
4) removing Iraq from the list when they complied with what the administration requested shows they never cared about banning Muslims.
5) the order has always been temporary, which makes no sense if the purpose was secretly to ban Muslims.
Then again he doesn't want to stop Saudis, even though more Saudis have killed people in the US than any other nationals from other Muslim countries.
Were not trying to stop the Saudis because its not a Muslim ban. Its a temporary ban on travel from countries where it is difficult to vet people properly. There is not such a problem with Saudi Arabians, and there are very few Refugees that I know of coming out of Saudi Arabia. WHY is this so hard to understand?
So, Afghanistan is easy to vet people, and Iran isn't?
It could be the Government of Afghanistan is more cooperative in helping. What makes you feel Iran would do anything to cooperate with us? when they threaten our ships and planes?
So, the govt of Afghanistan is cooperating. Does this mean that all Afghans who get into the US aren't going to then get radicalized inside the US?
Okay, perhaps Afghanistan should be added to the EO. Will that help or hurt the EO to pass judicial muster?Then again he doesn't want to stop Saudis, even though more Saudis have killed people in the US than any other nationals from other Muslim countries.
Were not trying to stop the Saudis because its not a Muslim ban. Its a temporary ban on travel from countries where it is difficult to vet people properly. There is not such a problem with Saudi Arabians, and there are very few Refugees that I know of coming out of Saudi Arabia. WHY is this so hard to understand?
So, Afghanistan is easy to vet people, and Iran isn't?
It could be the Government of Afghanistan is more cooperative in helping. What makes you feel Iran would do anything to cooperate with us? when they threaten our ships and planes?
So, the govt of Afghanistan is cooperating. Does this mean that all Afghans who get into the US aren't going to then get radicalized inside the US?
I haven't paid much attention to this second request of Prsident Trump's or these judicial stays...In the countries affected by the EO, the broken down car with a woman and childen could easily and even probably be a pretence for a suicide bomber (especially if you are a member of the US military). In Canada and many other countries, not so much.if it were a woman hitch hiker, in the pouring rain, next to her broken down car, with one child in her arms, and another little child sopping wet holding her skirt... as she waved her hand and put her thumb up, hoping and praying for help from a stranger... a stranger that wouldn't kill her or her kids, then YES, I would stop and help her, and take that chance!Let's use a better analogy. Suppose you are driving down a road a see a hitch hiker who really looks like he needs a ride. However, there is a 0.1% probability that he will rape and murder you if you give him a ride. Do you give him a ride? After all, most hitch hikers are harmless.Either way Joe, it still makes no sense...let me take out the religion indicator....it still seems rather fruitless and just silly....The eo does not use religion as an indicator.To me, it seems like a very foolish and silly move and statement that the admin is making with it....
It's like saying, because there is a future murderer who is a Christian living somewhere in your city or your State, that everyone who is a Christian in your city or your State should be locked up... or punished some how because there is a future murderer of the same faith, living near them, somewhere....???
It's like saying, because there is a future murderer living somewhere in your city or State, that everyone in your city or your State should be locked up... or punished some how because there is a future murderer living near you/them, somewhere....???
In simpler words, even though I know that a hitch hiker could end up killing me, not all hitch hikers would weigh as an equal threat in my brain...
I've noticed where the disconnect is with conservatives and progressives on trumps statements about banning Muslims. The issue is the context.
Conservatives see Trumps statements on banning Muslim in the context he made them. Trump saw the immigration issue as a national security issue. We need to keep Jihadists from entering the country to protect ourselves. His first instinct was to ban Muslims to keep jihadists out and was foolish enough to say it because of his political inexperience. He was quickly told he couldn't do that and revised his position. Why?
Because his intent was never banning Muslims. His intent was national security. Banning Muslims was his mean to those ends until he realized he couldn't do that. Then he focused on more tailored approach.
Progressives on the other hand think his intention is to ban Muslims. Presumably because he is a hatefilled islamophobe who wants to oppress minorities or some nonsense like that. They are completely losing the obvious national security issue with jihadists.
To conservatives his foolish statements were a means to an end: national security. Why? Because that's the context the statements were made. To progressives his statements were the ends and he is going to implement them by any means.
But trump never cared about banning Muslims in and of itself. Here are five reasons at prove that:
1) the context he made his statements were always wit national security in mind.
2) his executive order does not attempt to ban Muslims or any other group based on religion. it does not even attempt to apply to all muslims
3) it applies to all people in the affected countries regardless to religious iviewpoints
4) removing Iraq from the list when they complied with what the administration requested shows they never cared about banning Muslims.
5) the order has always been temporary, which makes no sense if the purpose was secretly to ban Muslims.
Then again he doesn't want to stop Saudis, even though more Saudis have killed people in the US than any other nationals from other Muslim countries.
Were not trying to stop the Saudis because its not a Muslim ban. Its a temporary ban on travel from countries where it is difficult to vet people properly. There is not such a problem with Saudi Arabians, and there are very few Refugees that I know of coming out of Saudi Arabia. WHY is this so hard to understand?
Also, if it's an issue of vetting, then what's been the problem before. How many people have got in that were a threat to the US when they go it? The people who have attacked are ones who WOULD HAVE PASSED THE VETTING PROCESS when they came in.
The new administration wants to do their due dilligence and set up their own process. It doesn't matter what went on before, Trump has no control over that but if something were to ever happen, Trump needs to be able to tell himself he did all that he could. Slacking and relying simply what existed before is unacceptable.
I would hope if you were President, you would feel the same way
But is preventing people from Iran coming in, but not Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Lebanon, UAE, Afghanistan doing all he can?
Wouldn't it be better to say that they're not letting in anyone who hasn't been vetted properly? Wouldn't that make more sense?
The point here is that Trump's ban is populist crap that doesn't do anything.
There hasn't been a single fatal attack from people from those 7 countries he's outlined. Only two attacks in the US have occurred from people with links to those countries and neither was fatal.
Trump isn't going to stop shit with his ban.
Then again he doesn't want to stop Saudis, even though more Saudis have killed people in the US than any other nationals from other Muslim countries.
Were not trying to stop the Saudis because its not a Muslim ban. Its a temporary ban on travel from countries where it is difficult to vet people properly. There is not such a problem with Saudi Arabians, and there are very few Refugees that I know of coming out of Saudi Arabia. WHY is this so hard to understand?
So, Afghanistan is easy to vet people, and Iran isn't?
It could be the Government of Afghanistan is more cooperative in helping. What makes you feel Iran would do anything to cooperate with us? when they threaten our ships and planes?
So, the govt of Afghanistan is cooperating. Does this mean that all Afghans who get into the US aren't going to then get radicalized inside the US?
Its not a perfect world, Its not a muslim ban, its already been explained. If we limit at least some of the people coming over then our resources in tracking and vetting are not as stretched. At least for 90 days this could allow us to catch up on any back log. So why do we need to ban everyone to satisfy you? all we really need to do is slow down a good portion of the traffic and then get things in order.
I haven't paid much attention to this second request of Prsident Trump's or these judicial stays...In the countries affected by the EO, the broken down car with a woman and childen could easily and even probably be a pretence for a suicide bomber (especially if you are a member of the US military). In Canada and many other countries, not so much.if it were a woman hitch hiker, in the pouring rain, next to her broken down car, with one child in her arms, and another little child sopping wet holding her skirt... as she waved her hand and put her thumb up, hoping and praying for help from a stranger... a stranger that wouldn't kill her or her kids, then YES, I would stop and help her, and take that chance!Let's use a better analogy. Suppose you are driving down a road a see a hitch hiker who really looks like he needs a ride. However, there is a 0.1% probability that he will rape and murder you if you give him a ride. Do you give him a ride? After all, most hitch hikers are harmless.Either way Joe, it still makes no sense...let me take out the religion indicator....it still seems rather fruitless and just silly....The eo does not use religion as an indicator.
It's like saying, because there is a future murderer living somewhere in your city or State, that everyone in your city or your State should be locked up... or punished some how because there is a future murderer living near you/them, somewhere....???
In simpler words, even though I know that a hitch hiker could end up killing me, not all hitch hikers would weigh as an equal threat in my brain...
but other than for ''show'' I see no benefit from the ban, when the ban is only for 90 days....so instead of it taking 2 years to get a visa to come here, it is now 2 years plus 90 days.... isn't that what this so called ''ban'' does? simply adds 90 more days to the process???
it's simply,
''I won't pick up the hitch hiker now, but 90 days from now, I will...?''
If the president outlined why the 90 extra days were needed, because they had these new, supplemental security processes of X, Y and Z needing the additional time for these new, additional screening measures....it seems like that would be reasonable...but to add 90 additional days just for the sake of pretending like you are doing something to fulfill campaign rhetoric...seems unreasonable/irrational to me.
