Agreed. Moreover, it’s a completely asinine idea to suggest, which is likely why I’ve never heard anyone say it until now.
Dammit, quit bringing logic and reason into a Trump thread!
Perhaps because the order doesn’t affect the 6 countries with the largest Muslim population, and only 1 of the top 10. Perhaps because the 7 countries targeted account for only 12.2% of the worldMuslim population.
I agree completely that the order should not have been applied to anyone with a valid visa or green card. I also agree that this is another example of “security theatre”, much like taking off my shoes at airport security (remind me how many shoe bombs have been discovered that way…). Hyperbole, however, tends to obscure the real issues. Calling this a “Muslim ban” is hyperbole.
Again with the semantics over substance. Great, it’s not a complete Muslim ban. Woo Hoo! Does that actually mean anything of substance other than trying to make Trump supporters feel a little better about discriminating against only some of the Muslims? Does it make those Muslims who are denied entry any less harmed because somewhere else in the world there is a Muslim who is allowed in?
Isn’t it awful to prevent grandmothers from seeing their grandchildren or from mothers seeing their sons or scientists from continuing their medical research?
Why can’t you just agree that it is an awful thing to do, but then say that is necessary to protect our country (and then make the case that we will actually be safer)? Why is it that you have to refute, ignore, deny, and obfuscate all the negative consequences of this executive order?
It’s not security theater; it’s pandering.
The European Union, Organization of Islamic Cooperation, the African Union, and all of the world’s far-right parties view this executive order as a Muslim ban, yet we have this percentage of Americans who insist it isn’t one - that’s it is something else. People can rationalize anything.
Everyone from those countries are terrorists? how do you know? Is it because they are muslim?
How many terrorists from those specific countries have entered the country previously? How do you know?
This doesn’t even make sense.
This order is inexcusable from any POV* - it targets countries whose citizens haven’t attacked us, but whose main offense seems to be that they’re 97% Muslim. It’s hard to derive any conclusion besides “Trump is out to get Muslims” from it.
And to people on the other side of the world who don’t follow our politics closely, it’ll be “the U.S. is out to get Muslims.”
I can only hope the protests over here are getting some publicity over there - that they know a lot of us Americans are very much opposed to this.
*OK, excepting the POV of people like Bannon who’d love to see an all-out war between the West and Islam. Fuck 'em.
Funny, Trump called it a ban. Spicer called it a ban. Kellyanne Conway called it a ban.
Now they’ve decided that they don’t like ‘ban’ after all, and want everybody to use new words. Glad to see you got the memo.
But as the commercial used to go, ‘ban’ won’t wear off, as the day wears on. They’re stuck with their own words, despite all their efforts to weasel away from them.
I have full faith that Trump will keep his promise drop the “moratorium” on the schedule he suggested, just the way I had full faith that he would keep his promise to show us his tax returns once he was elected.
Sorry, this is B.S. Please describe to me the scenario in which an evil terrorist who has already obtained a tourist visa, or for that matter a green card would have been able to quickly ramp up his plans to enter in the one week while Trump let people and businesses prepare for the “moratorium” on travel, but wouldn’t have already decided to enter the US prior to January 20th before the magic words “Islamic Terrorism” were uttered by our glorious leader, thus making us impervious to all attack.
I’m pretty sure the Administration will be only too happy if the world’s muslims take alarm and far fewer intend to visit or immigrate as a consequence.
Yeah, with apologies to Mencken, that excuse is clear, simple, and bullshit.
The list wasn’t arbitrary at all. The DHS, under Obama, identified these seven countries as being “of concern”. We can argue about whether banning almost everyone from them is reasonable or not, but it’s not like Trump just threw darts at a map to come up with the list.
It was Trumps executive order. He was not bound or forced to use any list. This was entirely his choice. This Obama thing is a transparant and pathetic attempt for cover. What compelled Trump to choose this list aside from him choosing to do so and because he could then use the Obama fig leaf to try to avoid responsibility? What forced his hand?
This whole list defense is pathetic. You are essentially arguing that the President had no choice in how to write his own executive order. Sad.
That’s not what I’m arguing at all. You should, perhaps, try to re-read my post.
Insults. Got it, that’s about what I expect from Trump people at this point. Why actually address an argument when you can just insult.
Cool. Have a good one.
Thanks for the link. It also provides an example of how to reasonably target potentially dangerous individuals: Traveled since date X, traveled to these countries, able to travel to the US as part of the Visa Waiver Program.
In other words, people who traveled under suspicious circumstances and have not been vetted to get a visa. Caution without undue discrimination.
Trump’s approach: Muslim ban (that he can get away with for now).
You were arguing against a straw man that existed only in your own mind. You want me to defend an argument I never made. I’m not going to waste my time like that.
He certainly didn’t throw darts, that might have ended up with one of the darts hitting a country he does business with. Couldn’t have that. But let’s not pretend he was bound by anything else when deciding which countries he could pick. It’s his order, he picked them. And he picked those countries, not because they’re the biggest risk or because Obama had used a similar list for something else, but because he wanted to. He wanted to pretend he had cover and mislead people into thinking it was Obama’s decision and he was just doing what Obama did.
You just parroted the WH – that’s not an actual justification for why those countries were chosen. Even assuming the WH is being honest, why did they go by that list, rather than many other lists of countries of concern, or dangerous countries, or whatever, that had been made over the past several years?