President 'The Donald' Trump and Surprising Consequences - Mod warning in OP

RobertKK

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Trump calls it a ban.

So what, maybe more truthful than calling it a backlog while new law is made.
Because it was a ban under Obama in everything but name.

Nody

RobertKK wrote: »

Great spin in that article.
It calls it a backlog.
Meanwhile the Trump administration say they need time to implement new vetting policies, and that is not a backlog...somehow.

Except the minor fact that every single month under Obama said refugees from Iraq were entering USA; there were no, none, nada, break in the intake of refugees during the period but they went 15k, 5k, 16k instead on the numbers. Now compare that to Trump outright banning entry for 3 months and you might just spot a difference.

RobertKK

alastair wrote: »

If you can't see the distinctions, there's not much can be done for you.

Well if you can't see the semantics in all of this.
Maybe Trump should have called it a backlog...

RobertKK

Nody wrote: »

Except the minor fact that every single month under Obama said refugees from Iraq were entering USA; there were no, none, nada, break in the intake of refugees during the period but they went 15k, 5k, 16k instead on the numbers. Now compare that to Trump outright banning entry for 3 months and you might just spot a difference.

Where is the evidence for this, as you are the only source provided.

alastair

RobertKK wrote: »

The reason for the war in Libya is Gaddafi said he would crush the terrorist uprising in Benghazi.

I recommend you acquaint yourself with the actual make-up of the National Conference for the Libyan Opposition - who Ghadaffi set out to crush.

alastair

RobertKK wrote: »

Well if you can't see the semantics in all of this.
Maybe Trump should have called it a backlog...

The issue isn't the semantics. It's the actual impact of the order.

Zubeneschamali

RobertKK wrote: »

So what

So when you brag that you are going to ban Muslims during the campaign, when a prominent supporter says you asked him how to ban Muslims but make it legal, and then you sign something you call a ban which affects Muslims...

...maybe the courts are going to think you are banning Muslims, which is illegal.

Harika

RobertKK wrote: »

Where is the evidence for this, as you are the only source provided.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/jan/30/donald-trump/why-comparing-trumps-and-obamas-immigration-restri/

Nody

RobertKK wrote: »

Where is the evidence for this, as you are the only source provided.

Well seeing how you're qouting Trump who's a known lier when it comes to fact you should really take the 30s it takes to fact check it yourself, but since you're to lazy here you go:

“While the flow of Iraqi refugees slowed significantly during the Obama administration’s review, refugees continued to be admitted to the United States during that time, and there was not a single month in which no Iraqis arrived here,” Jon Finer, an Obama administration official who worked on national security, writes at Foreign Policy.

“There was no ban on Iraqis in 2011,” Rhodes tweeted. “Anyone pushing that line is hiding behind a lie because they can't defend the EO.”

Finer and Rhodes’s account is backed up by two fact-checkers who looked into the issue, the Washington Post’s Glenn Kessler and FactCheck.org’s Eugene Kiely. Both concluded, in lengthy investigations that I encourage you to read, that Obama’s policy was not a six-month ban on Iraqi refugees.

Just to make this crystal clear, let’s place Obama’s policy and Trump’s policy side by side:

Obama: imposes new security checks on Iraqi refugees in response to a specific flaw in the security screening for people from that country, which slows down the admission rate of Iraqi refugees for six months but does not eliminate it.
Trump: Bans all refugees, from every country on Earth, for four months, with no evidence of a specific flaw in the refugee screening process, at a time when there are at least 60 percent more refugees worldwide than there were in 2011.

Now since you're about to start wave the whole Obama selected the seven countries red card instead let me close that one down as well for you.

What about Trump’s other claim — that the seven countries whose citizens he banned from entering America were designated by the Obama administration as “sources of terror?”

Trump is referring to an amendment to the State Department’s Visa Waiver Program, a longstanding initiative that allows people from certain countries to enter the United States without obtaining a visa first. After the San Bernardino terrorist attacks in December 2015, the Obama administration and Congress collaborated to change the way the program affected people from seven countries — Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen.

People with passports from these countries hadn’t actually been covered in the Visa Waiver Program (the law overwhelmingly privileges Europeans). But someone who was a dual national with citizenship from a covered country — say, a French Syrian — could theoretically use her French passport to enter the US with virtually no scrutiny. The new rules removed visa waiver privileges for dual nationals, as well as people from a visa waiver country who had recently visited one of the seven nations (like a Brit who had recently traveled to Iraq).

This is, to say the least, not the same as banning everyone who has an Iraqi passport from entering the United States. It is actually applying the rules that generally apply to Syrians to a French-Syrian, rather than the rules that generally apply to French citizens — as well as subjecting someone who has recently traveled to a conflict zone to extra scrutiny.

Enjoy reading up on it.

RobertKK

alastair wrote: »

I recommend you acquaint yourself with the actual make-up of the National Conference for the Libyan Opposition - who Ghadaffi set out to crush.

I was watching video from Benghazi where AQ flags were being flown and Gaddafi's black mercenaries were being beheaded.
It was not as clear cut as the west made out.

In the end the west did help terrorism in Libya with the removal of a Gaddafi, which cost a lot of lives in the Mediterranean.

PopePalpatine

robinph wrote: »

Anything I don't like is fake:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/828574430800539648

I fear that this kind of talk is going to be a big factor if Trump is re-elected in 2020, that he's setting up an increasingly impervious echo chamber for his supporters. We've already seen it here with all of the posters gushing over "The Donald". :rolleyes:

RobertKK

Harika wrote: »

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/jan/30/donald-trump/why-comparing-trumps-and-obamas-immigration-restri/

Where have politifact got their information from?
It has been accused many times of being biased.

Harika

RobertKK wrote: »

Where have politifact got their information from?
It has been accused many times of being biased.

The sources are in the article?

alastair

RobertKK wrote: »

I was watching video from Benghazi where AQ flags were being flown.

Long after Ghadaffi kicked off the civil war by trying to violently suppress civil dissent.
The Libyan uprising began in February 2011, and al Qaeda didn't get any sort of numbers of fighters into the country until the end of that year - after Ghadaffi was unseated.

Nody

And to once again prove that the Obama administration did not lie here's the numbers from Department of State, Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration, Office of Admissions - Refugee Processing Center per month:

Month Intake
Jan. 2011 1214
Feb. 2011 779
Mar. 2011 111
Apr. 2011 184
May 2011 418
Jun. 2011 298
Jul. 2011 665
Aug. 2011 1020
Sep. 2011 824
Oct. 2011 419
Nov. 2011 254
Dec. 2011 153



You can double check all the numbers as they are public and easily available here.

So can we please settle the whole "Obama did it why did you not protest" BS once and for all? Obama did not ban Iraq refugees from entering USA for 6 months. They did not ban it for 1 month because there was never, none, nada ban. And that is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

recedite

alastair wrote: »

The implication is that Putin is personally responsible for the deaths of people as opposed to Russian foreign policy. But then you knew that already.

How is a direct order from Putin different to a US president authorising a drone strike. Or authorising the mission to kill Bin Laden. Or the cruise missile strike on Gadaffi's home?

oscarBravo wrote: »

None of which is relevant to the fact that Trump described a member of the judiciary as a "so-called judge", thereby attacking the independence of the judicial branch of government and the separation of powers. Do you have anything to say about that, other than "but Obama"?

Get real.
When Trump signs an executive order to assassinate or fire a judge he disagrees with, that will be a breach of the separation of powers. Criticism is free speech.
Any judge can criticise the president too.

rgossip30

jobbridge4life wrote: »

I don't think many people have an issue with Trump criticizing a judgement. The point is he attempting to undermine a sitting a judge and question his legitimacy.

One District Court judge changes the ban for the whole country .

Harika

rgossip30 wrote: »

One District Court judge changes the law for the whole country .

He didn't change it, he upheld it.

MightyMandarin

rgossip30 wrote: »

One District Court judge changes the law for the whole country .

Do you even know how a legal system works?

Trump changed the law with his order and this judge upheld the status quo.

MightyMandarin

recedite wrote: »

Get real.
When Trump signs an executive order to assassinate or fire a judge he disagrees with, that will be a breach of the separation of powers. Criticism is free speech.
Any judge can criticise the president too.

He didn't criticise him, he actually brought his authority as a judge into question. Stop equating this to criticising a judgment; it is a much more serious claim to call a judge a "so-called" judge as it questions the validity of his decision as a member of the judiciary.

recedite

MightyMandarin wrote: »

Stop equating this to criticising a judgment...

I'm not. Its criticising a judge.
Which is not the same as dismissing a judge.

demfad

Buried in this article:

Trump did not know that the NSC EO gave Bannon a permanent seat on the NSC when he signed it! He literally does not know what he is signing.

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/02/05/us/politics/trump-white-house-aides-strategy.html?referer=https://t.co/4sFV11e2Jo

oscarBravo

recedite wrote: »

Get real.

Meaning, get with the alternative facts?

When Trump signs an executive order to assassinate or fire a judge he disagrees with, that will be a breach of the separation of powers.

Yes, it will. In the meantime, in a world where you read what I write instead of firing off a knee-jerk defence of the Dear Leader, the phrase "so-called judge" is an attack on the separation of powers.

Criticism is free speech.
Any judge can criticise the president too.

And yet you'll find that judges, being grown-ups with a sense of respect for the office they hold and the power of the words they use, tend to criticise the actions of the President rather than the President himself.

alastair

recedite wrote: »

How is a direct order from Putin different to a US president authorising a drone strike. Or authorising the mission to kill Bin Laden. Or the cruise missile strike on Gadaffi's home?

You don't see a difference in waging a war in the national interest, and assassinating journalists engaged in dissenting opinion against your personal interests?

alastair

recedite wrote: »

I'm not. Its criticising a judge.
Which is not the same as dismissing a judge.

He is a judge.
Trump wasn't criticising the judge in disputing his legitimacy to make a judgement.
Trump undermining his legitimacy as a judge is undermining the position of all the judiciary.

Zubeneschamali

demfad wrote: »

He literally does not know what he is signing

Here he is signing an EO with no idea what it says, and clearly having no idea who the woman who wrote it is, either:

https://twitter.com/AlumniUSC/status/827585842843488256

(this EO is a spectacularly bad thing for any middle-working class people who voted for him, but excellent news for thieves in suits).

B0jangles

As previously observed he also appears to get his morning tweet material, even down to phrases used from watching Morning Joe on Fox:

On MSNBC's "Morning Joe" on Monday, host Joe Scarborough asked skeptically whether his chief White House strategist, Steve Bannon, was "calling the shots" in the Trump White House.

Just under an hour after the segment aired, Trump declared in a tweet that he was calling "my own shots" in his administration.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/828575949268606977

http://uk.businessinsider.com/trump-watches-morning-joe-tweets-2017-2?r=US&IR=T

So it seems that if you want the President to think basically anything, you just get Joe Scarborough to talk about it - that's a bit worrying, is it not?

Overheal

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Here he is signing an EO with no idea what it says, and clearly having no idea who the woman who wrote it is, either:

https://twitter.com/AlumniUSC/status/827585842843488256

(this EO is a spectacularly bad thing for any middle-working class people who voted for him, but excellent news for thieves in suits).

That's pretty gross. This would remove the fiduciary rule for financial advisers to customers with retirement accounts, opening the field to conflicts of interest and profiteering (potentially)

Nody

Overheal wrote: »

That's pretty gross. This would remove the fiduciary rule for financial advisers to customers with retirement accounts, opening the field to conflicts of interest and profiteering (potentially)

No potentially about it; Wall street have hated the rule that they could not put their own profit first over their customers when giving financial advice on what to do with their savings & investments. Well now they don't since President Trump is all for Fat Cat Wall street bankers to **** over the little guy; Go Trump 2020!

eire4

MightyMandarin wrote: »

He didn't criticise him, he actually brought his authority as a judge into question. Stop equating this to criticising a judgment; it is a much more serious claim to call a judge a "so-called" judge as it questions the validity of his decision as a member of the judiciary.

Agreed. The fact he went after the judge in question is bad enough. But what for me is really chilling here is that clearly Trump has authoritarian tendencies as he wants a judiciary that does what he wants them to do not an independent judiciary that upholds the law. The manner of his attack on this judge is a clear public move to intimidate all judges that you do what he wants or else.