The Trump Presidency | Biden Inaugurated

Status
Not open for further replies.
2 - you don't think the outlets pushing the Trump-anti-Islam line were anti-Trump?

Just to clarify you think the outlets reporting the banning of Muslims from Muslim countires was indeed the election promise of banning Muslims is in fact just Anti-Trump?

Post Trump facts and logic I suppose
 
C4A8i__WMAAPGfM.jpg
 
Just to clarify you think the outlets reporting the banning of Muslims from Muslim countires was indeed the election promise of banning Muslims is in fact just Anti-Trump?

Post Trump facts and logic I suppose
The election promise was to appeal to a load of racist hicks, I think literally the night he won the Presidency he dumped it from his website? There were reports of all religions being banned from USA if flying from the blacklisted countries, it was not specifically Muslims. He thought there was a terrorist vetting problem, the vast majority of the country agreed with him according to polls, so he acted. And then so did the media.

What exactly is the big fuss anyway? USA is an independent country, they aren't obliged to let in anyone the same as you don't have to let strangers into your house.
 
I feel sympathy for some of the people affected by it
Not to mention the Geneva convention. It's alarming that people fall for Trump's BS propaganda that people from these seven countries can just fly into the USA and stay. To get a visa, they are already vetted. If considered a threat to the US, they don't get visas.
 
The election promise was to appeal to a load of racist hicks, I think literally the night he won the Presidency he dumped it from his website? There were reports of all religions being banned from USA if flying from the blacklisted countries, it was not specifically Muslims. He thought there was a terrorist vetting problem, the vast majority of the country agreed with him according to polls, so he acted. And then so did the media.

What exactly is the big fuss anyway? USA is an independent country, they aren't obliged to let in anyone the same as you don't have to let strangers into your house.

No one in intelligence, State Dept. or broader Natl Sec ever stated this was an issue. Uninformed Americans who have never been on the other side of their State Dept (because obviously not). to get even as much as a B1 visa think it's a cake walk for someone from the ME to re-settle to their country.

And the fuss is really the Constitution. The court case is not "this is so unfair on the immigrants", the case is "the President does not have the right to do so, and in the process harm the people of the states of Washington and Minnesota". The true principle of US government (and many others worth their salt) is not that the majority can do as it pleases, it is exactly that the majority cannot do harm to the minority, and that generally the more consequential the action, the larger the majority required to pass it.
 
Any ideas? Because as far as I can see his support don't seem very open to challenging conversations. I'm hoping the slow realisation that they backed an idiot who will not make there lives any better (possibly worse), and the drip drop of embarrassment leads them to come to their own enlightenment. They sure as hell won't be influenced by no snowflake liberal...

Most likely means democrat policy will need to move further to the right to accommodate enough of them to convincingly win the electoral college in next election.

Just as Labour party left wing thinking is redundant in the 21st century.
 
Most likely means democrat policy will need to move further to the right to accommodate enough of them to convincingly win the electoral college in next election.

Just as Labour party left wing thinking is redundant in the 21st century.

May as well make Mitt Romney the next Democratic nominee then.
 
Most likely means democrat policy will need to move further to the right to accommodate enough of them to convincingly win the electoral college in next election.

Just as Labour party left wing thinking is redundant in the 21st century.
It was a marginal win in the right states, better messaging, better candidate, and we wouldn't even be having this conversation. I don't think the party should be trying to move over to the right at all... What does that even entail?
 
It was a marginal win in the right states, better messaging, better candidate, and we wouldn't even be having this conversation. I don't think the party should be trying to move over to the right at all... What does that even entail?
May as well make Mitt Romney the next Democratic nominee then.

:D I'm with Bill Maher on this one, if I could I would take the $1m he gave to Obama in 2008 and give it to Romney if he could be President now. (His million dollars, not mine)
 
It was a marginal win in the right states, better messaging, better candidate, and we wouldn't even be having this conversation. I don't think the party should be trying to move over to the right at all... What does that even entail?

Obama's popularity should show that someone in the more centrist ilk is fine for the Democrats if they're popular. Image is key, really. Hilary probably wasn't all too different to Obama in many respects, and yet was perceived as being far more corrupt than him and a lot less likable.
 
Obama's popularity should show that someone in the more centrist ilk is fine for the Democrats if they're popular. Image is key, really. Hilary probably wasn't all too different to Obama in many respects, and yet was perceived as being far more corrupt than him and a lot less likable.
In many respects, I think it's a failure of communication. Her fav. Number rose after every debate because the electorate got to hear her speaking about policies in details. Her campaign appearances, however, didn't cut the mustard with 'go to my website'.

They promised to talk about issues and ended up not doing it.
 
No one in intelligence, State Dept. or broader Natl Sec ever stated this was an issue. Uninformed Americans who have never been on the other side of their State Dept (because obviously not). to get even as much as a B1 visa think it's a cake walk for someone from the ME to re-settle to their country.

And the fuss is really the Constitution. The court case is not "this is so unfair on the immigrants", the case is "the President does not have the right to do so, and in the process harm the people of the states of Washington and Minnesota". The true principle of US government (and many others worth their salt) is not that the majority can do as it pleases, it is exactly that the majority cannot do harm to the minority, and that generally the more consequential the action, the larger the majority required to pass it.
Except that the "this is so unfair on the immigrants" narrative is peddled by the ABCs and @Crossie's of the world, or more specifically perhaps "gosh this is such a racist anti-Muslim ban", and seems to have become the de facto storyline.
 
Except that the "this is so unfair on the immigrants" narrative is peddled by the ABCs and @Crossie's of the world, or more specifically perhaps "gosh this is such a racist anti-Muslim ban", and seems to have become the de facto storyline.

Gosh, could have been something to do with this...



At this stage, I think you're honestly wilfully, deliberately misinformed.
 
Except that the "this is so unfair on the immigrants" narrative is peddled by the ABCs and @Crossie's of the world, or more specifically perhaps "gosh this is such a racist anti-Muslim ban", and seems to have become the de facto storyline.

Yeah, I was gonna say, while not that relevant to the legality of the order, accusations of this being an initial attempt at a "muslim ban" are very much supported by the fact that Trump made the claim himself during his campaign. In terms of the narrative, I'd say he introduced the notion (and Giuliani, the senile one, reinforced it post-fact).

My main argument is that I realize that however unfortunate I might find it, with the right number of Senators, Congressmen and the President you can change the laws in such a way to ban muslims, or anyone else. But the President alone is not sufficient. His victory be it large or small is not a mandate to reshape the country and its laws however he sees fit, despite what he and his supporters believe.
 
The election promise was to appeal to a load of racist hicks, I think literally the night he won the Presidency he dumped it from his website? There were reports of all religions being banned from USA if flying from the blacklisted countries, it was not specifically Muslims. He thought there was a terrorist vetting problem, the vast majority of the country agreed with him according to polls, so he acted. And then so did the media.

What exactly is the big fuss anyway? USA is an independent country, they aren't obliged to let in anyone the same as you don't have to let strangers into your house.

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-...mp-statement-on-preventing-muslim-immigration

The press release is still there. No idea if he had the statement elsewhere.
 
Except that the "this is so unfair on the immigrants" narrative is peddled by the ABCs and @Crossie's of the world, or more specifically perhaps "gosh this is such a racist anti-Muslim ban", and seems to have become the de facto storyline.
Gosh, you're not even able to read or listen and process. You make a fantastic target for any type of fake news. SAD.
 


From http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/white-house-terrorist-attacks-234718 :
Oddly, the list includes no attacks in Israel, despite a spate of knife attacks in 2015-16 that were meant to terrorize the population. It also doesn’t include the mass shooting of African American churchgoers by Dylann Roof, an avowed white supremacist, at a Charleston church in June 2015, or a mass shooting at a Colorado Planned Parenthood clinic in November 2015.


And:
 
Last edited:
Trump will threaten to defund in 3, 2, 1 ...

 
Also includes a drug dealer, shooting it out with police in the "streets of Copenhagen". Some terror attack that.
It was covered quite a bit here, where it happened, for a couple of weeks, to be sure. Do these cnuts even have a point?
 
It was covered quite a bit here, where it happened, for a couple of weeks, to be sure. Do these cnuts even have a point?

And it wasn't a terror attack. I wonder how many other event like that made the list?!

Point being, that the stereotype of Trump supporters haven't heard of it, or a lot of the other attacks on the list (because they don't give a feck), but now they swallow Trumps "lying media" message raw along with the complete list.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.