Frankly immaterial to my point. Are you denying that most of the actual terrorists associated to attacks in the US came from countries not on the list?
Here's the question none of you clowns are answering: what do you get out of this? How are you benefiting?Lol. Can't wait for his Supreme Court nominee. Gonna drive the final nails in the liberal agenda coffin for decades.
Sorry bigots, you got outed by one of your own again. So arrogant!Rudy Giuliani on television: "Okay, I'll tell you the whole history of it. When [Trump] first announced it, he said Muslim ban. He called me up and said put a commission together, show me the right way to do it legally."
See: https://youtu.be/l9GKL6i38pI?t=2m53s
Not at all. Those countries were chosen by the previous administration because "refugees" from those countries were considered actual terrorist threats.
You cite a code, but make no argument yourself.
Plainly false in the case of Iranians.Not at all. Those countries were chosen by the previous administration because "refugees" from those countries were considered actual terrorist threats.
What they are trying to do is plainly obvious. They've even made statements about exceptions for christians from those countries.Sorry bigots, you got outed by one of your own again. So arrogant!
Plainly false in the case of Iranians.
There is not a plausible level of threat from visiting Iranians, at least compared to the far higher threat from Saudi Arabians and the like, where the practical concern for the US would be with Iranian government affiliated individuals if anyone who could be fairly filtered out through vetting if a concern. (An actual Iranian government espionage agent type would simply resort to the expedient of arriving on a visa with a false identity from a country not on the banned list.)
In fact, the average Iranian is a way lower threat profile than the typical Muslim from many other countries in that they are overwhelming Shiite who are enemies of ISIS and Al Qaeda and therefore extremely unlikely to be successfully recruited by these groups. Putting Iranians on the list in particular looks like either a rather arbitrary decision with a poor set of specific justifications behind it or a petty way to try to get back at a foreign government we don't like. (With the leadership of Iran mostly probably not truly caring about the ban in the first place other than taking advantage of the internal propaganda value of it.)
We can talk more about how they got listed the way they did in the first place, but actually implementing the ban this way does not fall under doing so in a way properly designed to limit the riskiest groups from entering as implemented among its other issues. (For good measure, actually admitted Iranian refugees at this point are more likely to either be some of the remaining Iranian Jews or secular inclined individuals who ran afoul of Iran's religious laws and are therefore especially unlikely to end up engaging in religiously motivated terrorism against the US.)
This is a preposterously dumb argument.The ban was implemented by the Obama administration in Dec 2015 and updated in Feb 2016. President Trump had nothing to do with making the list, President Trump simply turned up the existing ban from 10 to 11. If you want to be pissed at the choice of countries then blame Obama, DHS, Congress, etc.
Because cowards so scared! Quick get out your sheets so you can hide!Not only is not illegal, its the right thing to do!
Because cowards so scared! Quick get out your sheets so you can hide!
This is a preposterously dumb argument.
The difference between the new and old policies is indisputably night and day. If Trump can't justify the policy on his own at this point its his problem and responsibility since he could have implemented at least a different one which at least theoretically would come closer to achieving his stated goal for it. (While Congress might be slightly at fault, for at least the moment you can't really blame them that much yet although you could increasingly take issue with more Republicans not strongly criticizing the new policy.
You have a point. A more accurate thread title would be:
The ban that fucks over innocent muslims to prevent radical islamist terrorists entering the US that excludes the countries terrorists who have attacked the US actually come from but where Trump has business interests
I hope the OP updates it soon.
The fact that this is less a muslim ban than it is a right-handed-person ban. I realize that 99% of the news headings say exactly what your title says, but echo quantity doesn't create truth.What part of my thread title was inaccurate?
Basically if they block legislation that Democrats are going to propose if the immediate future to block Trump's move this picture is going to change. (I was just noting that especially blaming them right now is still slightly premature, and we should also be able to identify which members of congress to blame if the legislation is not passed.)All they have to do is pass a law that counters it or cut the budget for this move.
They'd rather flap their gums about it though than do their jobs. Party before country right?
So Rudy says it, but it's not true?The fact that this is less a muslim ban than it is a right-handed-person ban. I realize that 99% of the news headings say exactly what your title says, but echo quantity doesn't create truth.
The fact that this is less a muslim ban than it is a right-handed-person ban. I realize that 99% of the news headings say exactly what your title says, but echo quantity doesn't create truth.
Second, it is 100% legal to deny refugees and immigration from possible sources of terrorism. Jimmy Carter and GWB both did it. Lots of precedence.
My mistake broseph, when you said 'my title' I automatically assumed we were still talking about this thread title. Your title is pretty accurate (though pretty hyperbolic, right?)I didn't say Muslim ban...please try again.
@jackstar7 , what Rudy said may be true, but regardless of what was said over the phone *wink wink, nudge nudge, what actually happened was a ban that is nonspecific to muslims, men, women, volleyball captains or nerds who play shifty rogues on Thursday DnD nights.
It's p&n hyperbole is part of the deal.My mistake broseph, when you said 'my title' I automatically assumed we were still talking about this thread title. Your title is pretty accurate (though pretty hyperbolic, right?)