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.

 

You guys against the EO, what do you actually want?

page: 5
13
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 12:12 PM
link   
McCarthy still alive? Trumps probably has a job for him, if he wants it.

The entire thing is a disgusting pile of dung. If the EO was only limited to people who had NEVER visited the U.S. before, and had not undergone the ridiculously burdensome vetting process for a green card, work vista, etc. then I could somewhat understand, but it doesn't. I covers everyone out there. People who have had resident alien cards for years, and who have homes, cars, and lives here are stuck, just because they visited their families in one of the countries on the list. That is complete garbage, or had business in one of those countries.

It took less than two weeks in office for Trump to gleefully destroy lives, like the incredible piece of excrement he is. Two weeks in, and he's made the Carter years seem like a great Presidency.




posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 12:20 PM
link   
a reply to: EvillerBob


It really is just generic anger at anything that Trump does.


and it isn`t just at what trump does it`s generic anger at what they think trump might do, I think Trumpphobia is a good name for what is afflicting them.



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 12:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: Dem0nc1eaner

Historically, scientifically, and morally, I cannot support anything that Trump is doing, or has indicated that he wants to do.

History tells me that men who behave as he has, both previous to his election, and since then, are not to be trusted with the affairs of nations, for they have a tendency to destroy them, rather than to save them.

Scientifically, I cannot support any of his picks for science related departments, including the EPA and others, simply because they refuse to take on board the attitudes of 97% of scientists when dealing with those matters. They excuse this by saying that scientists have been paid off or co-opted by a political ideology... Which makes precisely no sense. The only structure with enough clout and finance to pay off or co-opt NINETY SEVEN PERCENT of scientists researching climate, for example, would be the oil industry. If they had paid off the scientists, the scientists would not be so opposed to more fracking drilling, and burning of fossil products. As it is, they are in the overwhelming majority, against more fossil fuel related nonsense, and insist on re-focusing energy companies toward renewable energy.

Morally speaking, Trump is dirt. There are hairs on my arse which have more moral fortitude, and no one who is less moral than I am, should be permitted to lead anything.


The stat is actually somewhere between 80 and 90%, but your point still stands I think.



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 12:49 PM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit

Its not designed to change the "immigration" system; the "immigration" system in the US can only be materially changed by Congress.

The 90 days is to provide a period for the agents in charge of visa application vetting to examine the processes of issuing visas from foreign consulates, a process which involves information gathering from local government sources, i.e., police departments, health records, etc. The idea is to be given time to insure that they're getting accurate information. At the same time, I'd expect, they are reviewing the criteria for issuing visas with an eye to insuring much more stringent vetting.

Its administrative in nature. And other countries do that all the time.



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 12:49 PM
link   
No one answered the question in this thread. This demonstrates something very problematic.

We have reached peak polarity.

If trump said tomorrow, "hey, everyone gets their mortgage and student loans paid off and personal stipend of 1 million dollars" the majority of the country would rise up against him. They'd demand accountability, they'd trot out how this only serves the rich, how it goes against modern work ethic, and they'd protest until he died. In fact, should he die look how they will cheer the death of another human being.

We have reached peak polarity, whereby black is white if I say it is white, but it is black if you say it is white. I am interested to see how long the human psyche can survive it, how long it takes before it shuts down entirely resulting in either true madness or actually unity.

Keep in mind two of Trumps first four EO's gave power back to the people and took it away from the government, something that has never happened at the presidential level ever, but he's wrong about that too. It isn't fun watching people mentally breakdown over how they are controlled, I am saddened by how many people crave TOTAL control by the state and will simply not rest until it happens.

As for your question, there is no rational element to the other side of this argument as evidence by the fact that no one answered you.



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 01:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kryties
a reply to: Dem0nc1eaner

I see a direct parallel between what Trump is doing and how Hitler stirred the German populace up against the Jews, followed by deportations and arrests. We all know how that ended up.

"Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it"


Unfortunately you seem to be one of the few that seem to be sufficiently open minded and willing to see the parallels. I'm sure the situation can't be compared, but it this way that the "civilised" world (intelligent societies) works, basically driven by greed and manipulation.

This leads me to believe that the States must be such a rotten place to live in to receive so much support for such overall and obvious and rotten bull#. History will repeat over and over again. Only reason is the absolut and utter ignorance of mankind. Today the not yet great America, yesterday the everlasting and glorious third reich and everything else the history has had or will ever produce. That is, if there is a future after this ongoing desaster



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 01:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Mike.Ockizard

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: Mike.Ockizard
a reply to: Dem0nc1eaner

I would propose asking the same question about securing the borders. If you are against building a wall, what would you propose be done to secure the borders? Something needs to be done right?





Enforce the current laws already in place.

If current laws where correctly enforced there would be no money to be made in illegally immigrating and so there would be no point in moving to the USA illegally.

Problem is LEO turn a blind eye to illegal immigrants and dont enforce the law, especially in santuary cities.


How do laws prevent illegals from walking across the border ???

Suggest your solution to ranchers and land owners along the border.



If they cant get on welfare and they cant get jobs then what is the point in crossing the Boarder ?



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 01:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Dem0nc1eaner

After I'd posted my comment to which you replied, a forgotten thought came to me.

That thought is simply, that as far as the US is concerned.............its too late to undo the damage done by 60 years of open borders policy. I think we all know that Trump is pretty much a last hoorah one-off phenomenon and the reason for that is quite simple. Yes, Trump won via the Electoral College, but the likelihood that any mainstream conservative or even moderate "Republican" could win the White House is laughable.

The problem is in the numbers. While most conservative/moderate Republicans live in fly-over country, most Leftists live in mega-cities and the combined populations of these mega-cities outnumber the people in fly-over country. Also, the mega-cities are where most of the immigrants end up and of course, these mega-cities are Leftist Democrat controlled regions, so of course, the immigrants pay homage to the Democrats.

But wait, it gets worse! A recent poll (I can't retrieve) showed that of US Youth, 30% of Millennials, self-identify as "Citizens of the World", as opposed to Citizens of the US. (I found it: www.weforum.org... ty/

Another survey I was just looking at indicated that 18% of the populations of the developing world see themselves as "World Citizens" and that seems to contribute to their notion that they have a right to immigrate to the US.

As a "nation-state" the US may be well on its way to "done". Trump is finding out that he is the recognized President of Fly-Over country, but................as to the cities? Not so much.



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

originally posted by: TonyS
As a "nation-state" the US may be well on its way to "done". Trump is finding out that he is the recognized President of Fly-Over country, but................as to the cities? Not so much.


Sounds like an excellent reason to have an Electoral College that stops a handful of mega-cities dominating the entire country.



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 01:38 PM
link   
a reply to: EvillerBob

True.
Enjoy it while you got it. You may not have it very much longer.



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 01:50 PM
link   
I want the cancerous rhetoric to cease
I want the staff and owners of ATS to make a stand against the war going on at ATS before they have to do something drastic.

I want America to understand where this is heading.. and to make steps to stop the madness.

It'd also be nice if your orange overlord put the big EO pen down and draw up some actual policy.. as it looks rather ugly on the world stage right now.

But meh... who am i to wish for anything like decorum and civility... and common sense in place of emotional outbursts



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 01:53 PM
link   
To be honest, I'm not against the EO... but I would have liked to see some more patience and refinement in regards to implementation. It caused quite a shock and confusion as it wasn't well communicated by the administration... That's all. Effective communication. That's what I want.

Like I have said previously, if there was intelligence that stated a threat was imminent from one of these seven countries, I could totally understand the haste. As is though, I do not believe there was such intelligence, so it appears the administration acted hastily out of fear...and an administration that acts out of fear is scary...

A2D
edit on 31-1-2017 by Agree2Disagree because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 02:29 PM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit

Do you see a consensus here like you've been led to believe?
Get over it, you've been lied to, and you fell for it.
No worries, many did, most are waking up now.


The Cook study gave papers a numeric rating. Rating #1 was "explicitly endorses and quantifies AGW as >50%". Out of 12,464 papers considered, only 65 papers were in this category (note: this was just based on study participants reading the abstracts, not the full paper).

Based on that statistic alone, one could defend the claim that one half of one percent of papers on AGW clearly claim humans are the chief cause of it. That headline finding would be "less than one percent of expert papers explicitly agree that global warming is anthropogenic."

But maybe it's not fair to include the "no position" papers. Let's exclude those. In that case, the headline finding is "1.5% (65/4215) of expert papers that took some position on global warming explicitly agree that global warming is anthropogenic."

The full list of endorsement categories were as follows:

Explicitly endorses and quantifies AGW as >50% (65 articles)
Explicitly endorses but does not quantify or minimize (934 articles)
Implicitly endorses AGW without minimizing it (2934 articles)
No position (8269 articles)
Implicitly minimizes or rejects AGW (53 articles)
Explicitly minimizes or rejects AGW but does not quantify (15 articles)
Explicitly minimizes or rejects AGW as less than 50% (10 articles)



posted on Feb, 1 2017 @ 04:13 AM
link   
a reply to: Dem0nc1eaner

Well lets see...

War for profit:

Real lefties do not care about profit, when humanitarian considerations are also at play. Therefore, any program that by default costs lives and makes money at the same time, is right wing in origin, the thinking from which it issues is not left wing at all, but to do with making money, at any cost. This is actually a fundamentally far right attitude, not a left leaning one in any respect whatsoever. Put simply, if hypercapitalist ideals spawn it, then an idea or concept cannot, by any realistic definition, be left wing.

Mass surveillance:

No genuinely left wing government would permit a program which damages liberty and freedom to exist, without the public being consulted on it, because genuine left wing ideology holds that a) the people are the state, and therefore the power, so b) they must be the ones to give permission for such exercises to go ahead. If they do not get consulted, then the people cease to be the power, and therefore the action is clearly ideologically opposed to leftist ideologies.

Allowing Flint Michigan to have poor water quality:

Again, putting money and costs before the lives and health of the people, is something that no legitimately left wing political establishment would permit. They would rather place a region in some level of debt, and correct the problem, than poison people with undrinkable water supplies. Any tendency in any part of government to save money at the expense of the citizen, their health or well being, comes from right wing ideology, because in left wing ideology, the only guiding principle is that the people are the only important thing in the nation, that provision for their health and quality of life is paramount amongst all other considerations. The bottom line is not relevant or important to a genuinely leftist individual or party. Therefore, any idea that puts money worries ahead of public safety and well being, cannot be the issue of left wing ideals.

There are all manner of things that I could mention besides, but I think these give an idea of what I am talking about.



posted on Feb, 1 2017 @ 05:25 AM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit


The indians had no problem with the pipeline coming across their land as long as they were getting their 30 million. Its when they rerouted the pipeline outside of reservation land and called off the thirty million payment all of a sudden it turned into a "pipeline" protest.

And its a fact that the US funds the entirety of ISIS? Care to back that "fact" up with something? Anything? It is a fact that ISIS has been funneling black market oil through turkey for sometime now. And unlike your statement I can back that up with many sources from a quick google search. Funny how ISIS started reeling when the Russians started hitting their oil convoys which WAS the main source of their revenue. You know, kinda what Trump has been saying all along needed to be done.

Maybe you are just fine and dandy with letting people just pour into your country or the US knowing nothing about them. There are many, many people like myself who feel the opposite. And unlike many Brits and Americans I have actually been to the ME and have seen firsthand what the people there are like. Many of them are good people, but also a great many of them are not.

It is obvious that you are letting your emotions cloud your judgement TB, too many here in America are doing the same.

And what exactly has Trump done that has been so horrible his first two weeks in office please tell.
edit on 1-2-2017 by Cancerwarrior because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2017 @ 05:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: brutus61

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: Dem0nc1eaner

Historically, scientifically, and morally, I cannot support anything that Trump is doing, or has indicated that he wants to do.

History tells me that men who behave as he has, both previous to his election, and since then, are not to be trusted with the affairs of nations, for they have a tendency to destroy them, rather than to save them.

Scientifically, I cannot support any of his picks for science related departments, including the EPA and others, simply because they refuse to take on board the attitudes of 97% of scientists when dealing with those matters. They excuse this by saying that scientists have been paid off or co-opted by a political ideology... Which makes precisely no sense. The only structure with enough clout and finance to pay off or co-opt NINETY SEVEN PERCENT of scientists researching climate, for example, would be the oil industry. If they had paid off the scientists, the scientists would not be so opposed to more fracking drilling, and burning of fossil products. As it is, they are in the overwhelming majority, against more fossil fuel related nonsense, and insist on re-focusing energy companies toward renewable energy.

Morally speaking, Trump is dirt. There are hairs on my arse which have more moral fortitude, and no one who is less moral than I am, should be permitted to lead anything.


"NINETY SEVEN PERCENT of scientists researching climate, for example, would be the oil industry. If they had paid off the scientists, the scientists would not be so opposed to more fracking drilling, and burning of fossil products. As it is, they are in the overwhelming majority, against more fossil fuel related nonsense, and insist on re-focusing energy companies toward renewable energy. " Except one teeny tiny little detail: As long as we are only producing a small amount of the oil we could be producing in this country the price remains skyrocketed for the ones we do have producing it thereby making it perfectly reasonably for oil companies to back this. Not saying this is the case just that your reasoning has some gaps in it.


Sadly many of the backers for global warming are huge energy companies. Look at exxon they call themselves an energy company for a reason they have no problem building wind farms etc lots of money to be made. And all the while it helps reduce competition in the energy market win win for them.

www.dallasnews.com...



posted on Feb, 1 2017 @ 10:41 AM
link   
a reply to: crankyoldman
You obviously have never read my reply. As I suggested in answer to the OPs question, every country aught to go back to the old practice of vetting people in their country of origin (through the embassies) thereby short cutting the problem of them landing on your soil to just be sent back as if refused they wouldn't have left their own country.

edit on 1-2-2017 by crayzeed because: Added sentence.



posted on Feb, 1 2017 @ 10:43 AM
link   
a reply to: Cancerwarrior

Was this supposed to be a reply to the post you linked to?

Did not seem like it to me.



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join