It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

OK. Its not a muslim ban

page: 13
115
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 06:40 AM
link   
Mr. Trump did perhaps not take the perfect course of action, but it was a necessary one.
The more the left speak, the less odds become of them dethroning Mr. Trump.

Just let things play out, watch and eat popcorn. Because this s going to be good.
I believe previous presidents have taken way more drastic measures in the past.

The actions taken have not become more serious, but the observers sure have gotten a whole lot more crazy.




posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 06:48 AM
link   
a reply to: uncommitted

Cartman is a character from South Park.

Cartoon characters have nothing to do with this.

Please elaborate further.

Please also re-read my OP.



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 06:55 AM
link   
a reply to: SaucySosa
I commend your attempt to educate folks with facts unfortunately people don't care. It's all about emotion and closet racism often hiding behind the statement "I have muslim/black friends".

Facts are for scientists and as we know scientists are the new evil liars.

More and more people are becoming very ignorant and are content to be in a state of constant agitation. Open a history book we have been here before.



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 07:02 AM
link   
a reply to: SaucySosa

Star for a great analogy. No Trump sycophant will read it unfortunately.



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 07:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: xstealth
If you want to call it as it is, it's a common sense plan.

Don't let people come in without more extreme vetting, period.

What is so hard to understand about that?


I think what you're pushing is complete ignorant propaganda that a middle schooler can debunk.



Yes but they don't even question the Irish. Those jerks are always after me lucky charms.
Magically delicious.
Believe me.



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 07:35 AM
link   
a reply to: neformore

I think the people that are against what Trump is doing need to personally experience Islamic terrorism first hand, either against themselves or someone they care about. I think after that their stance would quickly change.
edit on 31-1-2017 by Brett83 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 07:43 AM
link   
I don't see what the issue is. The new administration wants to take a look at the current vetting procedures in place for accepting refugees from a handful of destabilized countries that are hotbeds of international terrorism. Until they can review the existing procedures and determine their adequacy, they've ordered a temporary ban on travel from those countries to ensure the safety and security of our own citizenry. That sounds like a reasonable, common sense approach to me.



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 07:50 AM
link   
a reply to: vor78

The Left are mad that their efforts towards White genocide are being foiled.



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 08:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: Brett83
a reply to: neformore

I think the people that are against what Trump is doing need to personally experience Islamic terrorism first hand, either against themselves or someone they care about. I think after that their stance would quickly change.


So, what is your first hand experience?
None?
Believe me.



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 09:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: xstealth

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: neformore

The only label I need is simple and concise. Unconstitutional.


It's completely constitutional, it's within the power of the executive branch to stop immigration from certain regions.

Every president of our life has done it.

So that's why 4 federal courts have already overturned parts of it and there are legal battles across the country trying to get it overturned as unconstitutional huh? You DO know that Trump doesn't determine constitutionality right? That isn't his branch of the government.



I guess it's a good thing those courts are not the law of the land then.The supreme court is. Thus, this situation is not settled.



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 09:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: neformore
a reply to: uncommitted

Cartman is a character from South Park.

Cartoon characters have nothing to do with this.

Please elaborate further.

Please also re-read my OP.


Cartman is also loud, irritating and very twitchy about anyone who doesn't respect his authority - I find it quite apt.

I did read your OP, my comments still stand.



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 10:20 AM
link   
a reply to: KEACHI

How? I thought congress blocked banning people based on religion?



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 11:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: neformore

Your OP is an impressive assertion of personal opinion.
That's similar to a sound bite isn't it?
They share characteristics for sure.


Maybe you would be interested in facts then?

Number of murders by Right Wing Extremist Terrorists in the USA since 9-11?

50

Comparison: 783,000 refugees who entered US since '01 have committed
0 terror killings

Seems folks like Bannon selling right-wing hate rhetoric are an infinitely greater danger to this country than the people Trump has banned.

Since 9-11 NONE of the terrorist attacks on US soil were planned or executed abroad.

AND 9-11 was carried out by nationals from Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Lebanon, and the United Arab Emirates..NONE of which are on Trumps ban list.

They were all lone wolf natives, inspired by ISIS rhetoric promoting a Untied States wholly intolerant to Muslims...recruiting rhetoric which this EO supports. It makes us LESS safe to our greatest threat...Home Grown Lone Wolves.

www.newsweek.com...

www.newamerica.org...

This EO, driven by Trumps Chief Advisor Bannon is simply an intolerant, white-nationalist pandering, "clash of civilizations" hate propaganda piece commonly found on Bannon's outlet Briebart, but prettied up and made policy through the WH.

It is an EO built upon "Alternative Facts"

It was so counter to American ideals that the acting Attorney General refused to defend it.

And YES it is UNLAWFUL, UNAMERICAN and UNCONSTITIONAL




Trump Says Persecuted Christians Will Be Given Priority As Refugees

www1.cbn.com...



Rudy Giuliani Admits Trump’s Executive Order Is A Backdoor Muslim Ban

www.huffingtonpost.com...



Excerpt of former AG Sally Yates letter






My role is different from that of the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), which, through

administrations of both parties, has reviewed Executive Orders for form and legality before

they are issued. OLC’s review is limited to the narrow question of whether, in OLC’s view, a

proposed Executive Order is lawful on its face and properly drafted. Its review does not take

account of statements made by an administration or it surrogates close in time to the issuance of

an Executive Order that may bear on the order’s purpose.




And importantly, it does not address

whether any policy choice embodied in an Executive Order is wise or just.

Similarly, in litigation, DOJ Civil Division lawyers are charged with advancing

reasonable legal arguments that can be made supporting an Executive Order. But my role as

leader of this institution is different and broader. My responsibility is to ensure that the position

of the Department of Justice is not only legally defensible, but is informed by our best view of

what the law is after consideration of all the facts. In addition, I am responsible for ensuring that

the positions we take in court remain consistent with this institution’s solemn obligation to

always seek justice and stand for what is right.




At present, I am not convinced that the defense of

the Executive Order is consistent with these responsibilities nor am I convinced that the

Executive Order is lawful.


assets.documentcloud.org...



Giuliani and Pres. Trumps public statements on the Executive orders intent are admissible in court challenges.






Trump's order relies on the broad executive powers outlined in Immigration and Nationality Act (or INA), which provides:







"no person shall receive any preference or priority or be discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person's race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence."







David Bier, an immigration policy analyst at the libertarian Cato Institute, wrote that "Trump's new policy would run afoul of at least one if not all three of (the) restrictions -- nationality, place of birth, or place of residence -- depending on how it was applied."







Religious test

by showing "preferential treatment" for Christian refugees seeking asylum over Muslims or by seeking to "disfavor a particular religion," the executive order would violate the Establishment Clause.

"The executive order, of course, does not say in express terms that it is favoring Christians and disfavoring Muslims. But Trump is the signatory, and he has said so explicitly," wrote Cole.




www.cnn.com...








edit on 31-1-2017 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)

edit on 31-1-2017 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 12:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Brett83
a reply to: neformore

I think the people that are against what Trump is doing need to personally experience Islamic terrorism first hand, either against themselves or someone they care about. I think after that their stance would quickly change.


Interesting post.

I mean, I experienced radical catholic terrorism first hand twice - does that have a different flavour to Islamic terrorism?

Its still not a muslim ban though, is it?



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 12:35 PM
link   
Genuine question to those who support this: are you not troubled by the lack of a ban on Saudi Arabia/Egypt? We know there's plenty of terrorism associated with those countries, and we also know SA was heavily involved in 9/11. So surely, using Trump's current logic, SA at least should be at the top of the list?

Wouldn't be related to his business interests now would it?



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 12:48 PM
link   
The "terrorism isn't a problem if we pretend 9/11 didn't happen" stats being pushed are reprehensible. Exercise in how you can make stats say whatever you want, if you cherry-pick them the right way.



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 12:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: fencesitter85
Genuine question to those who support this: are you not troubled by the lack of a ban on Saudi Arabia/Egypt? We know there's plenty of terrorism associated with those countries, and we also know SA was heavily involved in 9/11. So surely, using Trump's current logic, SA at least should be at the top of the list?

Wouldn't be related to his business interests now would it?


Since you obviously haven't been paying attention, let me explain. The countries that were stopped for now were identified by the Obama administration. They are the basis for the current EO. Meanwhile, it also directed an investigation to determine if any other countries should be added to the list. They could've waited until that was done to stop these 7 countries, but since they were already identified by Obama's people as a problem, it was more prudent to just start with them while we determine who else we need to put a halt on.

So no, your fantasies about Trump's businesses don't hold water.



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 01:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: fencesitter85
Genuine question to those who support this: are you not troubled by the lack of a ban on Saudi Arabia/Egypt? We know there's plenty of terrorism associated with those countries, and we also know SA was heavily involved in 9/11. So surely, using Trump's current logic, SA at least should be at the top of the list?

Wouldn't be related to his business interests now would it?


Since you obviously haven't been paying attention, let me explain. The countries that were stopped for now were identified by the Obama administration. They are the basis for the current EO. Meanwhile, it also directed an investigation to determine if any other countries should be added to the list. They could've waited until that was done to stop these 7 countries, but since they were already identified by Obama's people as a problem, it was more prudent to just start with them while we determine who else we need to put a halt on.

So no, your fantasies about Trump's businesses don't hold water.


You seem upset. It was a perfectly fair question. And no, I haven't trawled through the entire thread to see if it already came up.

I just find it a little ironic that a man who has done nothing but criticise obama's policies and actions, would happily just take this EO decision precisely on the basis of the countries identified by the Obama admin, without adding such obvious choices as Egypt and SA. You know, countries where we know terrorism abounds without a shadow of a doubt. Wouldn't be at all hard to add them.

I think you're giving him too much credit and letting your heart rule your head.



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 02:24 PM
link   
a reply to: fencesitter85

Who's to say he won't add these countries in the future? He's been in office for 11 days, the information was already gathered on those 7 countries, maybe he's in the process of reevaluating the others?

I



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 02:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: f4rwest
a reply to: fencesitter85

Who's to say he won't add these countries in the future? He's been in office for 11 days, the information was already gathered on those 7 countries, maybe he's in the process of reevaluating the others?

I


I say Trump got away with as much as he legally could with what was available to him.

He's made much stronger personal statements.



new topics




 
115
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join