The Truth Behind Trump

[Underhill]

Nothing we can't handle? What if that attack, as small and insignificant as it was in the grand scheme of the US, managed to kill your family? Could you handle it?

Irrelevant to the discussion. Trying to make this personal accomplishes nothing. The country would be fine.

 

[Neo Deist]

Irrelevant to the discussion. Trying to make this personal accomplishes nothing. The country would be fine.

My point was made. The country would be fine. You would not be.

 

[Kirran]

Statistics don't account for acts of terrorism in the future.

We should ban all Lithuanians too then. You never know when the Lithuanians are going to start committing suicide bombings.

 

[Underhill]

Cuban refugees come to mind.

Then you would be wrong. Obama never cut off immigration from Cuba. He simply changed the rules for those who fled here so they were more in line with how we treat other countries. Essentially normalizing immigration from Cuba.

It simply meant that those who showed up illegally from Cuba were sent back instead of automatically giving them refugee status.

 

[Quetzal]

I'm fairly sure Obama didn't do that. Obama increased the difficulty of getting visas but I never heard of any outright ban.

Obama’s administration did stop processing all applications for Iraqi refugees for a six-month time period. (Jimmy Carter and Chester Arthur were also among presidents to restrict immigration by nation state).


A 2013 ABC News article reported, “The State Department stopped processing Iraq refugees for six months in 2011, federal officials told ABC News – even for many who had heroically helped U.S. forces as interpreters and intelligence assets.”

Did President Obama ‘Ban’ Iraqi Refugees?

It is similar.

 

[Quetzal]

Cuban refugees come to mind.

Iraqi, too!

 

[Neo Deist]

Then you would be wrong. Obama never cut off immigration from Cuba. He simply changed the rules for those who fled here so they were more in line with how we treat other countries. Essentially normalizing immigration from Cuba.

It simply meant that those who showed up illegally from Cuba were sent back instead of automatically giving them refugee status.

Obama sent them home.
Trump sent them home.

Somehow being sent home by a democrat is different?

 

[Kirran]

Obama sent them home.
Trump sent them home.

Somehow being sent home by a democrat is different?

Obama didn't send them all home. He normalised the immigration of Cubans to be in line with other nationalities.

 

[Laika]

Statistics don't account for acts of terrorism in the future.

It does indicate patterns and allows us to assess how much our fears are driven by media hype though. I mean the press don't really care about the statistics as long as they sell papers pushing popular myths and fictions. They just make money off exploiting vulnerable people by telling them to be afriad.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

I think most of what gets me about this - and what strikes it as unfair profiling - is that he's making an exception for Christians. If you're going to ban those countries, then ban them all.

 

[Underhill]

Did President Obama ‘Ban’ Iraqi Refugees?

It is similar.

There are similarities, but some pretty large differences as well. One simply stops them anywhere they are in the process. The other stops them at the beginning. One was a bunch of countries we were not in conflict with, the other with one that we were. One creates an exception for christians (thus giving it a religious slant), the other does not.

 

[Underhill]

Obama sent them home.
Trump sent them home.

Somehow being sent home by a democrat is different?

One is illegal, the other is not. Trumps order stops all immigration from those countries regardless of status. Obama simply changed how Cuban illegals were treated so it was the same as how we treat those from Mexico or most other countries.

 

[Underhill]

My point was made. The country would be fine. You would not be.

What does that matter in international policy?

 

[Quetzal]

There are similarities, but some pretty large differences as well. One simply stops them anywhere they are in the process. The other stops them at the beginning. One was a bunch of countries we were not in conflict with, the other with one that we were. One creates an exception for christians (thus giving it a religious slant), the other does not.

Good post!

 

[MD]

Currently, the only thing to assault America either country could do is launch nukes, and no nuclear power is going to launch in an age where the consequences are total destruction.

The only organized people, with the will and capacity to act, who want to see American lives destroyed are Islamic militants.

There are many ways Russia and China can destroy America without nukes. Trade for example, in China's example or geopolitical maneuvering in Russi'a example. If America was poorer without the same geopolitical clout it has today it would be much easier to destabilize and collapse.

Also if you believe that Islamic militants are that big of a threat, why no target the head of the hydra, aka Saudi Arabia. Why not target Pakistan or Turkey? Oh right, they're 'allies'.

 

[esmith]

I have to say I think you have the entire thing wrong. First, ISIS is very little threat to the US. They have no power over us. They may be able to mount some kind of terrorist attack but nothing we cannot handle. They offer no real large scale threat. Certainly no more than any other terrorist organization.

The biggest threat to us as a nation is a hard thing to pin down. But ISIS wouldn't even make my list.

They are a threat to some of our allies, and to middle east stability. So as such, I support aiding those who fight ISIS.

You do realize that there are other terrorist organizations other than ISIS, which could pose as much threat to us here. Why do you think he listed countries where other terrorist organizations are thriving?
To you point that ISIS is very little threat to the U.S. is that it seems that when a loan gunman kills a number of people here in the US there is a immediate call for something to be done, yet when President Trump basically says let's pause entrance into the country from areas that are a hotbed of terrorist activity until we take a serious look on how we are vetting these people you and others have a problem with it. Sure doesn't make much sense to me. In one instance you are calling for new laws to stop "mass shooting", yet balk at reevaluating our visa and refugee programs.

 

[Underhill]

You do realize that there are other terrorist organizations other than ISIS, which could pose as much threat to us here. Why do you think he listed countries where other terrorist organizations are thriving?
To you point that ISIS is very little threat to the U.S. is that it seems that when a loan gunman kills a number of people here in the US there is a immediate call for something to be done, yet when President Trump basically says let's pause entrance into the country from areas that are a hotbed of terrorist activity until we take a serious look on how we are vetting these people you and others have a problem with it. Sure doesn't make much sense to me. In one instance you are calling for new laws to stop "mass shooting", yet balk at reevaluating our visa and refugee programs.

I realize that. And I've never been one of those. Sure, I think we need more gun control, but the mass shootings are only one small part of the issue. They just garner the most attention as they are among the most horrific.

As for the topic at hand... Those 7 countries may be hotbeds, but you cannot deny that there are others that are as bad or worse. Saudi Arabia would have to top anyone's list.

I am against any ban, but this ban is doubly worthless as it is bad in principle and it can't even be justified as effective since the countries where most of our terrorist come from aren't even on the list. It is a political bill, designed to meet a campaign promise but not much more.

 

[Nous]

The seven countries of Iraq, Syria, Libya, Iran, Somalia, Yemen and Sudan, are the ones that are banned. [. . .] The ban is not permanent.

Yes, it was quite temporary. It lasted one whole day before being stayed by federal judge in an emergency order, on the grounds that it violated the Constitutional rights of the petitioners and others similarly situated who were affected by it.

Then the next day, Homeland Security altered Trump's order. When has that ever happened before--that a government department changed a President's executive order due to its overt unconstitutionality.

I'm certain Trump will do lots more unconstitutional things during his brief stint in office. Fortunately there is a judiciary to strike down his unconstitutional orders.

 

[Yerda]

Cheeseburgers are more dangerous to Americans than ISIS.

 

[esmith]

I realize that. And I've never been one of those. Sure, I think we need more gun control, but the mass shootings are only one small part of the issue. They just garner the most attention as they are among the most horrific.

As for the topic at hand... Those 7 countries may be hotbeds, but you cannot deny that there are others that are as bad or worse. Saudi Arabia would have to top anyone's list.

I am against any ban, but this ban is doubly worthless as it is bad in principle and it can't even be justified as effective since the countries where most of our terrorist come from aren't even on the list. It is a political bill, designed to meet a campaign promise but not much more.

You are entitled to your opinion just as I am entitled to disagree with it. Guess we are at an impass