Trumps purpose was never a Muslim ban

[frigidweirdo]

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.

Hes doing a lot more than the folks with the D on their lapel from what I can tell. It's a start, but oh wait, liberal judges wont let him start.

Okay, how many attacks in the USA from people from those 7 nations since Obama took office then?

If they didn't do anything, then clearly there would have been LOTS of attacks.

So, you show me all these attacks to "prove" that the Democrats didn't do anything.


Note: The democrats did do something, but they didn't do in a manner to keep you people happy. Trump's seen that the way forward is to basically get out the trumpet and blow it so fucking hard that you people get erections.

 

[JoeMoma]

I don't know that Trump's EO is good or necessary. What I do know is that as the duly elected president, by established law Trump has the responsibility to make the determination which immigrants pose a security threat to America. The buck stops with him as far as this responsibility is concerned. The law does not say that he has to explain how he weighs the threats. So unless there is something specifically in the EO that is unconstitutional, the judicial branch should not be able to stop it.

 

[Yarddog]

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.

Hes doing a lot more than the folks with the D on their lapel from what I can tell. It's a start, but oh wait, liberal judges wont let him start.

Okay, how many attacks in the USA from people from those 7 nations since Obama took office then?

If they didn't do anything, then clearly there would have been LOTS of attacks.

So, you show me all these attacks to "prove" that the Democrats didn't do anything.


Note: The democrats did do something, but they didn't do in a manner to keep you people happy. Trump's seen that the way forward is to basically get out the trumpet and blow it so fucking hard that you people get erections.

The only erections taking place are because you guys are making a big deal over a temporary ban that never was a big deal at all. It is important though for the reasons pointed out by JO Momma in the post above.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The other point here is, if Trump wants to keep people safe, and yet Muslims have contributed to a very small part of US killings, why not try and keep people safe from AMERICANS with guns?

 

[JoeMoma]

The other point here is, if Trump wants to keep people safe, and yet Muslims have contributed to a very small part of US killings, why not try and keep people safe from AMERICANS with guns?

Have you not heard that Trump also plans to restore law and order in cities such as Chicago to reduce US killings?

 

[frigidweirdo]

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.

Hes doing a lot more than the folks with the D on their lapel from what I can tell. It's a start, but oh wait, liberal judges wont let him start.

Okay, how many attacks in the USA from people from those 7 nations since Obama took office then?

If they didn't do anything, then clearly there would have been LOTS of attacks.

So, you show me all these attacks to "prove" that the Democrats didn't do anything.


Note: The democrats did do something, but they didn't do in a manner to keep you people happy. Trump's seen that the way forward is to basically get out the trumpet and blow it so fucking hard that you people get erections.

The only erections taking place are because you guys are making a big deal over a temporary ban that never was a big deal at all. It is important though for the reasons pointed out by JO Momma in the post above.

Well some people don't like policies to be put in place for no reason other than for nationalistic nonsense to keep certain parts of the country happy.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The other point here is, if Trump wants to keep people safe, and yet Muslims have contributed to a very small part of US killings, why not try and keep people safe from AMERICANS with guns?

Have you not heard that Trump also plans to restore law and order in cities such as Chicago to reduce US killings?

Yes, I've heard him say A LOT OF THINGS, and many of them are contradictory, so..... should I expect him to achieve all he's said?

I mean, he said he'd eradicate the drug problem. Oh, sure he will. Not.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I don't know that Trump's EO is good or necessary. What I do know is that as the duly elected president, by established law Trump has the responsibility to make the determination which immigrants pose a security threat to America. The buck stops with him as far as this responsibility is concerned. The law does not say that he has to explain how he weighs the threats. So unless there is something specifically in the EO that is unconstitutional, the judicial branch should not be able to stop it.

Er.. what? You're saying the President shouldn't have checks and balances from the Judiciary? So, let's repeal the Constitution then.

 

[JoeMoma]

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.

Hes doing a lot more than the folks with the D on their lapel from what I can tell. It's a start, but oh wait, liberal judges wont let him start.

Okay, how many attacks in the USA from people from those 7 nations since Obama took office then?

If they didn't do anything, then clearly there would have been LOTS of attacks.

So, you show me all these attacks to "prove" that the Democrats didn't do anything.


Note: The democrats did do something, but they didn't do in a manner to keep you people happy. Trump's seen that the way forward is to basically get out the trumpet and blow it so fucking hard that you people get erections.

The only erections taking place are because you guys are making a big deal over a temporary ban that never was a big deal at all. It is important though for the reasons pointed out by JO Momma in the post above.

Well some people don't like policies to be put in place for no reason other than for nationalistic nonsense to keep certain parts of the country happy.

Those that try to make everyone happy ultimately make no one happy.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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.

Hes doing a lot more than the folks with the D on their lapel from what I can tell. It's a start, but oh wait, liberal judges wont let him start.

Okay, how many attacks in the USA from people from those 7 nations since Obama took office then?

If they didn't do anything, then clearly there would have been LOTS of attacks.

So, you show me all these attacks to "prove" that the Democrats didn't do anything.


Note: The democrats did do something, but they didn't do in a manner to keep you people happy. Trump's seen that the way forward is to basically get out the trumpet and blow it so fucking hard that you people get erections.

The only erections taking place are because you guys are making a big deal over a temporary ban that never was a big deal at all. It is important though for the reasons pointed out by JO Momma in the post above.

Well some people don't like policies to be put in place for no reason other than for nationalistic nonsense to keep certain parts of the country happy.

Those that try to make everyone happy ultimately make no one happy.

Well, is the presidency about making people happy, or about implementing policies that work?

 

[Yarddog]

The other point here is, if Trump wants to keep people safe, and yet Muslims have contributed to a very small part of US killings, why not try and keep people safe from AMERICANS with guns?

Im not against background checks for people buying guns, and Im not against background checks for legal immigrants or refugees.

The other thing you fail to see is the problem Europe is having with UN assimilated refugees and immigrants. It's not entirely a question about crime but in the case of Parts of France and others its having sections of your country that no longer belong to you anymore.Inside those regions terrorist can operate more freely. You will laugh of course because the US is so large, but it also is about prevention. we can see whats going on across the pond and do things now so your grandkids wont be dealing with a problem that YOU let get out of control.

WE also slowed down immigration in the early 20th century for assimilation reasons as well.

 

[JoeMoma]

I don't know that Trump's EO is good or necessary. What I do know is that as the duly elected president, by established law Trump has the responsibility to make the determination which immigrants pose a security threat to America. The buck stops with him as far as this responsibility is concerned. The law does not say that he has to explain how he weighs the threats. So unless there is something specifically in the EO that is unconstitutional, the judicial branch should not be able to stop it.

Er.. what? You're saying the President shouldn't have checks and balances from the Judiciary? So, let's repeal the Constitution then.

Did you miss the last sentence in my post? Unless there is something specifically in the EO that is not constitutional. Not for something he said during the campaign not in the EO.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The other point here is, if Trump wants to keep people safe, and yet Muslims have contributed to a very small part of US killings, why not try and keep people safe from AMERICANS with guns?

Im not against background checks for people buying guns, and Im not against background checks for legal immigrants or refugees.

The other thing you fail to see is the problem Europe is having with UN assimilated refugees and immigrants. It's not entirely a question about crime but in the case of Parts of France and others its having sections of your country that no longer belong to you anymore.Inside those regions terrorist can operate more freely. You will laugh of course because the US is so large, but it also is about prevention. we can see whats going on across the pond and do things now so your grandkids wont be dealing with a problem that YOU let get out of control.

WE also slowed down immigration in the early 20th century for assimilation reasons as well.

But this isn't about background checks.

This is like saying "Hey, guys, you can't buy guns for the next 90 days if you're a Christian because we're going to stop it so we can consider a new law"

Are you happy with this?

The other issues you're talking about I don't see any relevance to this discussion here.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I don't know that Trump's EO is good or necessary. What I do know is that as the duly elected president, by established law Trump has the responsibility to make the determination which immigrants pose a security threat to America. The buck stops with him as far as this responsibility is concerned. The law does not say that he has to explain how he weighs the threats. So unless there is something specifically in the EO that is unconstitutional, the judicial branch should not be able to stop it.

Er.. what? You're saying the President shouldn't have checks and balances from the Judiciary? So, let's repeal the Constitution then.

Did you miss the last sentence in my post? Unless there is something specifically in the EO that is not constitutional. Not for something he said during the campaign not in the EO.

Well, the courts are there to interpret what something means. Congress writes laws, the courts interpret those laws, so those laws better be written well. Same for executive orders.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Trumps purpose was never a Muslim ban

Sure......... whatever you say.............

 

[Vandalshandle]

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?

..and Trump has been in office for almost 60 days, and his "temporary ban" was supposed to be 90 days, "until we find out just what is going on...". So, I am wondering just why he insists on taking the issue to the SC, since that would only happen long after the 90 day "temporary" ban would have expired. It certainly looks like Trump is not going to lift a finger to vet anybody until he wins his court fight, which is, of course, driven by his ego, and not national security.

But, I understand his priorities. We simply MUST get to the bottom of the imaginary wiretapping by Obama before we deal with national security.

 

[NYcarbineer]

" So you are certain that Trump was just as eager to ban Christian Syrians as he was Muslim Syrians? "

Of course not, the Christian Syrians are not the ones we have to worry about committing terrorist attacks against us. But he could not deny entry to the Muslims without also denying entry to Christians and every other religious group, which as you know would then be a muslim ban.

Were you aware that the first EO (and possibly the second, which I haven't read) had an explicit EXCEPTION for Christian refugees from Syria?

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

If national security was the aim, why is the ban temporary? Do foreign threats to our national security magically end 90 days from now, or whatever?

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

So you are certain that Trump was just as eager to ban Christian Syrians as he was Muslim Syrians?

. You got something against Christians ? No one has anything against peaceful Muslims, and if you think you have the formula for decifering who is who from the war zones or countries that don't have great vetting processes then do tell...Are you
willing to gamble with your family members lives after all that we know about this stuff now ?

My plan is not to be involved in the Middle East AT ALL.

 

[usmbguest5318]

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.

Maybe he did. Maybe he didn't. If he did, he got that wrong too. (see attached document)