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: 6
115
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 02:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Deny Arrogance

I won't explain a false narrative either.




posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 02:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: neformore
I get it - its not a muslim ban.

So lets call it what it is.

Its a fear-based pandering to the lowest common denominator of religious stereo-typing born out of massive ignorance with very little substance in terms of actual proof of evident cause and effect piece of political showmanship that has been rushed in to place to cater for Trumps "core" audience

Admittedly, thats not as good a soundbyte, but it captures the essence of it.

And while we're on the subject of things that aren't something - no, its not the same as what Obama did - as you can read here;
foreignpolicy.com...

The problem with politics right now is that it needs some straighter talking and less soundbytes.

So lets do less soundbytes.


You defend the statements as if you were doing just that, making factual statements. The truth is that we all know what your intentions were and are by bringing it up this way.

So I will play along, it is fear based correct; many fear further terrorist attacks in our country. I don't know that it is ignorant, as Sublime put it much more eloquently than I can; a la there are plenty of reasons to choose the countries chosen. Talking about cause and effect, we can see the effect that mass and open immigration from these countries has on the countries that welcomed those masses openly and we don't want to cause the same thing to happen to us. I don't think it was any core audience that was being placated, but our entire population whether they agreed with it or not. Fortunately or unfortunately that is the power we have given all Presidents and Governments up till now for the most part.

I think there is nothing inherently wrong with your statement, but the only ignorance I see is asserting that statement is without subjectivity or personal perspective. I happen to think Trump is a bit of a clown, but I think it is about damn time we get honest and proactive about our safety. It obviously isn't the "be all end all" or the only precaution needed but it is a first step in the right direction.



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 02:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Care to explain why the EO cites the 9/11 terrorist attack but doesn't ban anyone from Saudi Arabia?

Ask the DHS of the Obama administration.



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 02:51 PM
link   
a reply to: sputniksteve

I explained more here;

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 02:52 PM
link   
a reply to: neformore




Its a fear-based pandering to the lowest common denominator of religious stereo-typing born out of massive ignorance with very little substance in terms of actual proof of evident cause and effect piece of political showmanship that has been rushed in to place to cater for Trumps "core" audience


Yeah ok then.



Release Date: February 18, 2016




WASHINGTON—The Department of Homeland Security today announced that it is continuing its implementation of the Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015 with the addition of Libya, Somalia, and Yemen as three countries of concern, limiting Visa Waiver Program travel for certain individuals who have traveled to these countri




Pursuant to the Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security had sixty days to determine whether additional countries or areas of concern should be subject to the travel or dual nationality restrictions under the Act. After careful consideration, and in consultation with the Director of National Intelligence and the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Homeland Security has determined that Libya, Somalia, and Yemen be included as countries of concern, specifically for individuals who have traveled to these countries since March 1, 2011. At this time, the restriction on Visa Waiver Program travel will not apply to dual nationals of these three countries. DHS continues to consult with the Department of State and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence to develop further criteria to determine whether other countries would be added to this list.




Last month, the United States began implementing changes under the Act. The three additional countries designated today join Iran, Iraq, Sudan and Syria as countries subject to restrictions for Visa Waiver Program travel for certain individuals. Under the new law, the Secretary of Homeland Security may waive these restrictions if he determines that such a waiver is in the law enforcement or national security interests of the United States. Such waivers will be granted only on a case-by-case basis. As a general matter, categories of travelers who may be eligible for a waiver include individuals who traveled to these countries on behalf of international organizations, regional organizations, and sub-national governments on official duty; on behalf of a humanitarian NGO on official duty; or as a journalist for reporting purposes.


www.dhs.gov...



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 02:52 PM
link   
The majority has spoken overwhelmingly in support of Trump's actions.




posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 02:53 PM
link   

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




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


And I think you're letting fear rule your senses instead of letting freedom ring.



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 02:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Care to explain why the EO cites the 9/11 terrorist attack but doesn't ban anyone from Saudi Arabia?

Ask the DHS of the Obama administration.

I'm asking you about this EO, Mr. Deflection. How about answering that question first?



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 02:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: xuenchen

This is the second thread I've seen you repeat that lie.
In the last 24 hours, four federal courts have objected to Trump’s actions

It hasn't been fully repealed yet, but it is NOT fully in effect any more.


Which they have exactly ZERO authority to stop.

The only court that gets to decide EOs is the SCOTUS.



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 02:57 PM
link   
Obama has released a statement through a spokesperson, saying he is "heartened" by the protests around the country.



With regard to comparisons to President Obama’s foreign policy decisions, as we’ve heard before, the President fundamentally disagrees with the notion of discriminating against individuals because of their faith or religion.”

www.yahoo.com...
Full statement is at the link.

Obama is doing nothing to help heal the country right now. He needs to go away.



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 02:58 PM
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.


I would like to live in a country that has the sovereign right to decide who it does or does not allow entry to, and it is nobody else's damn business. A country where those who do not like those laws have the choice to not come to this mythical land, or go and live somewhere else with no, or less stringent border controls Its a dream I have.
edit on 30-1-2017 by CulturalResilience because: (no reason given)

edit on 30-1-2017 by CulturalResilience because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 02:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: neformore

Yes , and while we are on the Subject , let Us think back to All the Terrorist Attacks , and the Innocent People Slaughtered that have Happened in the United States and Around the World in the Last 2 Years , along with the Identities of the Perpatrators of those Acts . Confirmed Radical Islamic Terrorists who some have Claimed Publicaly to be Responsable for those Deadly Attacks . If it Quacks Like a Duck , and Looks Like a Duck , It's Definately a Duck .

Let's talk about heart disease instead? It's the number 1 killer in the US and if you were REALLY serious about Americans being killed you'd put your money where your mouth is instead of conflating a few anecdotes as indicative of a larger trend that doesn't exist.


I have a few questions for you and anyone else reading this that disagrees with the ban.

Question 1.
Should there be a vetting process?

If yes: Why not take the time to create a really good vetting process in order to save as many American lives as possible?

If no : This conversation is terminated.

Question 2.
How does letting in refugees benefit average Joe that got laid off at the factory?



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 02:59 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko


You're right. Most poeple won't and that's why this is a Muslim Ban instead of a temporary travel restriction from some very unstable countries unlikely be able to realistically vet who does and does not leave their countries and/or provide solid records to verify who these people are.


None of this has anything to do with Trump's own rhetoric? How were Trump's intentions first announced? Back in December of 2015, he said:

"total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States"

Correct? Couple months later, it starts to be a "temporary ban." After the Orlando attack, what did he say? Did he say "temporary travel restrictions?" No. He said:


His father published support for the Afghan Taliban, a regime which murders those who don't share its radical views, and they murdered plenty. The father even said he was running for president of Afghanistan. The bottom line is that the only reason the killer was in America in the first place, was because we allowed his family to come here.

With 50 people dead and perhaps more ultimately and dozens more wounded, we cannot afford to talk around issues anymore. We have to address these issues head-on. I called for a ban after San Bernardino and was met with great scorn and anger but now many years and I have to say many years but many are saying that I was right to do so. And although the pause is temporary we must find out what is going on. We have to do it.


The San Bernardino terrorist he's talking about, Syed Rizwan Farook, was American born (Chicago) and 28. No amount of vetting of his parents could have predicted that three decades later their unborn child would become a terrorist. The terrorist who massacred people in Orlando, Omar Mateen, was 29 and also American born (New York). Same deal.

Neither of these people would have been affected by the ban. No "extreme vetting" could have predicted what unborn children would be doing decades in the future. So why conflate? Also, notice that throughout, Trump has referred to the ban as a ban. It wasn't until when? December that the position was further refined to include only countries with high instances of terrorism.

How did that come about? Hmmmm.... well Rudy "Jabberjaws" Giuliani explained it and pay very close attention to what he says (@ about 3:10):




When he first announced it he said "Muslim ban." He called me up. He said, "Put a commission together — show me the right way to do it legally." I put a commission together with Judge [...] what we did was we focused on — instead of religion — danger. The areas of the world that create danger for us which is a factual basis not a religious basis.


So he asked how to do his "Muslim ban" and Giuliani and friends did what? They shifted it from a "Muslim ban" to a what you see here.

It was "Muslim ban" "Muslim ban" "Muslim ban" for how long? When it was put to Giuliani, he was asked how to make that Muslim ban legal.

Now Trump supporters are pretending like everyone else is off their rockers for calling it a "Muslim ban." I'm sure Xeunchen will be by shortly to remark on what a work of genius this was and how Trump masterfully "trolled" the media, politicians, etc yet again.


A few months to put in place a system to try to screen out the ones like to drive cars through large crowds or attempts to procure firearms and unleash large volleys of bullets into large crowds of the unsuspecting would be a nice precaution. Don't you think?


This is Trump giving the appearance of having done something. On the one hand his supporters will say that "he fulfilled his campaign promise!" even though his campaign promise was... a "Muslim ban" and those that oppose him for the same will be derided for mischaracterizing this newest iteration of the "Muslim ban."

In terms of "a nice precaution?" You could say that about anything. I could say that forcing you to get a new "extreme driver's license test" tomorrow is a "nice precaution" too. Never can be too safe right? Maybe the old test wasn't good enough? Did they do a hair follicle test for illegal substances? Maybe you pose a risk? The NSC estimated 38,300 automobile crash related fatalities in the US in 2015. Perhaps we should stop all driving for a few months until we can get a handle on this!

In typical Trump fashion, he has promoted an irrational level of fear, pitched a "solution" that isn't a solution that his die hard supporters lapped up and now they can't understand why the rest of us are shaking our heads.
edit on 2017-1-30 by theantediluvian because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 03:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Care to explain why the EO cites the 9/11 terrorist attack but doesn't ban anyone from Saudi Arabia?

Ask the DHS of the Obama administration.

I'm asking you about this EO, Mr. Deflection. How about answering that question first?


This EO uses the same list, Ms. Finger-in-ears.



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 03:00 PM
link   
New Conspiracy Idea:

If a Federal Court strikes the whole EO, guess what happens....

...Nothing because the existing laws and regulations can still be enforced by simply enforcing what has previously been "alternatively relaxed".

Trump does it again.




posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 03:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Deny Arrogance

More proof that the people throwing a tantrum over this are an extremely vocal minority serving a partisan agenda, which is why they were dead silent when Obama banned immigration from Iraq in 2011.



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 03:01 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

And?

Am I arguing with that?



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 03:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Alien Abduct

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: neformore

Yes , and while we are on the Subject , let Us think back to All the Terrorist Attacks , and the Innocent People Slaughtered that have Happened in the United States and Around the World in the Last 2 Years , along with the Identities of the Perpatrators of those Acts . Confirmed Radical Islamic Terrorists who some have Claimed Publicaly to be Responsable for those Deadly Attacks . If it Quacks Like a Duck , and Looks Like a Duck , It's Definately a Duck .

Let's talk about heart disease instead? It's the number 1 killer in the US and if you were REALLY serious about Americans being killed you'd put your money where your mouth is instead of conflating a few anecdotes as indicative of a larger trend that doesn't exist.


I have a few questions for you and anyone else reading this that disagrees with the ban.

Question 1.
Should there be a vetting process?

If yes: Why not take the time to create a really good vetting process in order to save as many American lives as possible?

If no : This conversation is terminated.

Question 2.
How does letting in refugees benefit average Joe that got laid off at the factory?

Question 1: Yes. It already exists and is pretty damn thorough since it takes something like 3 - 6 months to be properly vetted as a refugee.
Question 2: False correlation. You let in refugees because it is the humane and reasonable thing to do, not for some sort of quid pro quo.



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 03:03 PM
link   
Ok lets call it what it is and you may be right, so when are you going to blame Obama? You know the guy who orinally made this ban?



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 03:03 PM
link   
a reply to: bender151

Hi - where did I comment on something being constitutional?



new topics

top topics



 
115
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join