"It's not a Muslim ban! It's working out very nicely!"

Post Reply New Topic

Yes they are. I should have checked that before making that comment. At the time I was still under the notion that other countries considered that America had sole responsibility in taking in refugees. I also got that idea because it seemed like people were saying now the refugees had no place to go.

I'm not at all in favor of America refusing refugees, I just didn't understand at the time why it seemed to me that America was the only place they had to go.

Refugees do go to plenty of other places; we just don't hear about it very much, except when some right wing nativist/populist politician in a host country wants to boot said refugees out.

i must admit that it is curious that he has implemented the ban. if there is a national revolt (which seems like it is happening), then one wonders whether he could be removed from office due to the prevention of civil unrest.
it is also curious that the ban is for 100 days, and he has not indicated what will happen then. it may be the case that he wants to craft his own legislation regarding immigration and he believes he will have a surprising and bilaterally acceptable plan within 100 days, and until then he will call a halt to all immigration.

but can he last 100 days until he has a plan? if the public becomes divided and civil unrest becomes untenable, then he may have overestimated his safety in office.

also, the people who may be killed due to his temporary ban can never be forgotten.

the USA is in trillions of dollars of debt, and so it seems like everywhere he can make a saving and replace old procedures with more efficient ones, he will address.

the retraction from the trans pacific partnership is reflective of his distaste for "syndicates" which essentially the TPP is.
i think he would prefer to deal with each nation individually and not be hamstrung by delegations that represent the will of the combined region.

i do not know, but i think he is playing his hand dangerously.

It's interesting that the muslim countries involved in the 9-11 attack on the US in 2011 (SaudiArabia, UAE and Egypt) are not on the banned list
On the other hand the 7 countries on his target list have never had terrorists that have infiltrated the US...

Curious so why?

Well the muslim countries that are not on the list happened to be ones where he is involved in business
http://www.npr.org/2017/01/28/512199324 ... iness-with

Talk about a massive conflict of interest!!

He made it perfectly clear that he was going to do this first thing if he was elected, so it's not like this should have been an unexpected maneuver on his part. And his plans to do what he's doing didn't keep him from being elected. And according to the article of law I read, the president has the authority to close the borders to a particular group. The thing with civil unrest is people were protesting and rioting as soon as he won the election. I'm sure a goal is that if there's enough protesting and rioting, he will have to be removed from the presidency, but I don't think that's how it works.

Plenty of Republican politicians and talking heads had promised again and again that Trump wasn't serious about this, and so people believed them, despite the fact that Trump was promising to do it.
And even if he did promise to ban Muslims from the start, that doesn't mean Americans can't protest the policy.

i am not really interested in american law and whatever, but what i do know is that if a president suffers some sort of mental breakdown and becomes cognitively impaired, he would be stood aside until either he rocovered or until it was evident that the brain damage was permanent. that is not impeachment.
as far as i know, impeachment occurs due to the revelation of dishonesty in a president, and i do not think he has been dishonest.

in my opinion, i think he is the type of person who has to personally design all aspects of his business, and treating america like his new business is what is currently happening.

maybe a control freak in some ways.

but i think that his replacement policies will eventually placate the masses if he gets them right.
he also would not reveal that he is working on his own design for immigration because he would be hounded as to "what is his progress and what are the basics" etc, when he is the type of person who will reveal the finished product.

but in this interim period of 100 days, if people are killed due to their inability to flee their country, he will not be forgiven.

but australia will take people in genuine danger and so will many other countries.
if someone in syria says "i must come to america because if i don't i will be killed", one could argue "why not settle for for australia or the myriad of other countries that will protect you from your fears".

political asylum is respected in almost every country if it can be established that death is a likelihood if they remain in their own country.

but for the people who live and work in america that went to the middle east to visit their families who can not return, it is quite outrageous.

but if they are american citizens (no matter their race or creed), they can not be barred from returning i am sure.

what would be political suicide would be to annul american citizenship of any person who has it.


i can not enter america because i have 3 drink driving charges over the course of my life.
the last time i was charged was about 20 years ago, but it does not matter.

an american company my company was doing work for wanted me to go there to implement my system and steward it's calibration, but i was refused entry.
this was 10 years ago.

I didn't say they couldn't protest. But I will say considering the heavy degree of protesting that took place before this, before he had done anything at all as President, I think it might just start seeming like the usual to many. They are protesting over Trump. What else is new? That's always been the case since the election. I think that's why people were saying people should wait until he was in office and did something before protesting. Now it just seems like a daily occurrence that's been going on since Nov 9th.

I have an insanely radical theory: maybe he's just doing it in the interest of national security and there's no conspiracy or ulterior motive involved. I know, I should have my head examined for even considering such a whacked out theory.

It's no more plausible than Bannon's chaos, which he has said he wanted, in order to begin his holy war of christians against everybody else.

People in the administration have called for both. Would anyone still make the argument that this is all in the interest of national security if martial law was declared?

Well, now people do have a legitimate reason to protest Trump.

Not such a crazy idea, as Bannon, a completely unqualified person, has been upped to the national security council. Expect policy to be driven by right wing, Alt Right ideology for the next four years, rather than by hard facts.

Have some sympathy for Bannon. He has enemies. They are fundamentally evil, and they have a grudge against him, his mom, and Jesus. They control a vast international banking conspiracy, and he has found their plans for thought-crime death camps.

What else can he do? What would you do if you were in that position, Bill?

Edit: My point is that if you read the comments here, they feel that the world has a grudge against their values. They refer to vast conspiracies of utterly amoral people, and some expect to be jailed for their very ideas if Democrats control the government. People who believe that narrative are dangerous, and it's easy to see why if you put yourselves into that mindframe. Bannon has promoted all those ideas. He may even believe them himself.

But, hey, in my experience, even the smartest racists never have had matching competence.

Speaking from a personal experience or lack thereof. This has already been happening ever heard of the no fly list pretty much the exact same thing but instead of telling them not to come here just telling them to go back where the came from. But all the same there is no difference.