GM_Tood

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think this poorly thought out ban order was the beginning of us seeing Trump weaving his own financial interests into policy. It just so happens they decide to ban immigrants from 7 nations from which 0 deaths on American soil have come, at the same time as NOT implementing bans for countries with other countries where Trump just so HAPPENS to have business? Totally above board, right?

Fake News. Jesus people, do some research.

 

What part of that is fake?

 

That this has anything to do with Trump's financial interests. And that these 7 countries were just magically picked out of a hat based on those interests.

 

Then why were three (possibly four if you want to include Pakistan) countries that produced terrorists who have killed on US soil been left of the list?

 

Because in order to add additional Countries to those listed as 'Countries of Concern' it would have taken a longer process (Congress)to get this EO done. And if I remember hearing on CNN interview yesterday, that the possibility of adding countries is still a possibility.

 

But why were those countries not on the list from the beginning? Those are the ones we actually do have a problem with right? If I have gangrene in my left foot, why would I start to fix the problem by cutting off my right leg?

 

I would have to re-read the initial action taken when these countries were added. You make an excellent point as to why no other country was among those deemed 'Countries of Concern'. i will try to find out.

EDIT:

https://www.dhs.gov/news/2016/02/18/dhs-announces-further-travel-restrictions-visa-waiver-program

Not sure why other than they did not meet the criteria per Sec of HS.

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.

I'm glad people are coming out in full support of these actions. It helps to be clear about where we stand, because then we can have a conversation about why.

First of all, it's not temporary for Syria, the country whose citizens need our help more than anyone.

 

 

I do not think it is a "Muslim Ban"...if it was then why not just shut down all countries listed as having majority Muslim population?

Because that would be illegal, so they couched it in distracting rhetoric. Guilliani even admitted as such on Fox News, saying Trump wanted a muslim ban and came to Rudy to ask, "How can we make this legal?" Easy. By finding some other excuse to ban entry from these Middle Eastern countries.

 

 

 

I am hopeful that the temporary ban will allow the Feds to revamp/fix/address/whatever the vetting processes that happen for those from the 7 countries (and possibly all countries) before they enter our country legally.

Would you care to offer any kind of evidence or support of ANY kind whatsoever that the vetting process needs to be revamped, fixed, addressed, or whatever? 800,000 refugees here since 9/11 - not a one has killed an American citizen, and 3 have been charged with terrorism-related crimes. That's 99.99999% effective. So many people are saying this is a a good idea until we can solve the problem with our vetting - the question is, what problem? There doesn't seem to be one that exists, and though I and others have countless times posted the screening process graphics from the White House, nobody has ever cared to respond.

 

 

 

There's a few problems I have with immigration at large:

1. Our path to citizenship sucks and it's way too hard for good people to enter the country legally.

2. Our ability to prevent bad immigration sucks and it's way too easy for bad people to enter the country illegally.

3. People who attempt to solve problem #1 by exacerbating #2 are part of the problem.

4. People who don't want to solve #1 until #2 is solved are part of the problem.

 

I remember thinking in 2011/2012 that then President Obama could redeem himself in the upcoming election by pushing an issue that was very ripe in my opinion: solving #1 and #2 with a broad immigration reform. He (nor did Romney) talk about immigration.

re: the bolded, what do these have anything to do with Trump's refugee ban? It is easy for bad people to enter our country, period. Forget illegally. They can get here on tourist visas with tremendous ease. They're not trying to pose as refugees or immigrate - that's way more work and way more difficult. Further, Obama actually did quite a bit. I see a lot of conservatives on Facebook referencing his Iraq refugee halt in 2011, which was in response to an actual terrorist threat in the states, and resulted in a revamp of our now extremely thorough and effective vetting procedures.

 

Evidence or support, do I have to find a Facebook post or reddit image to back my opinion?

https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2015/11/the-refugee-vetting-process-will-fail

http://www.npr.org/2015/11/17/456395388/paris-attacks-ignite-debate-over-u-s-refugee-policy

http://immigrationreform.com/2016/09/30/naturalization-errors-expose-vetting-problems/

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-syria-refugees-vetting-gap-20170125-story.html ---Read this one first.

Ask the European countries that have been having issues with immigrants/refugees from some of these 7 countries if you think there aren't issues.

As far as what you bolded, I was stating my opinion on Immigration as a whole.

 

 

 

 

I think this poorly thought out ban order was the beginning of us seeing Trump weaving his own financial interests into policy. It just so happens they decide to ban immigrants from 7 nations from which 0 deaths on American soil have come, at the same time as NOT implementing bans for countries with other countries where Trump just so HAPPENS to have business? Totally above board, right?

Fake News. Jesus people, do some research.

 

What part of that is fake?

 

That this has anything to do with Trump's financial interests. And that these 7 countries were just magically picked out of a hat based on those interests.

 

 

First of all, that part of his post has nothing to do with the news. No news organizations are making a fact claim about Trump's motivation being related to his business. What the news has done is point out the facts relating to Trump's business dealings in the Middle East. They have not offered conclusions based on those facts. What dudeguyy did was state an opinion based on looking at the facts presented, which are true.

 

You're revealing your suggestibility by spouting off about fake news. I'd bet the house that you never spent any time talking about fake news before 2016, and now you've adopted one of Donald Trump's main distraction talking points. You're far better than this Tood. You're not thinking for yourself on this one.

 

Yes, there are news organizations that are pressing the issue. I try to watch multiple news stations and there have been two in particular that have. I will try to find the interview from last night from CNN. I will put a placeholder here.

 

 

 

 

I think this poorly thought out ban order was the beginning of us seeing Trump weaving his own financial interests into policy. It just so happens they decide to ban immigrants from 7 nations from which 0 deaths on American soil have come, at the same time as NOT implementing bans for countries with other countries where Trump just so HAPPENS to have business? Totally above board, right?

Fake News. Jesus people, do some research.

 

What part of that is fake?

 

That this has anything to do with Trump's financial interests. And that these 7 countries were just magically picked out of a hat based on those interests.

 

Then why were three (possibly four if you want to include Pakistan) countries that produced terrorists who have killed on US soil been left of the list?

 

Because in order to add additional Countries to those listed as 'Countries of Concern' it would have taken a longer process (Congress)to get this EO done. And if I remember hearing on CNN interview yesterday, that the possibility of adding countries is still a possibility.

 

 

I think this poorly thought out ban order was the beginning of us seeing Trump weaving his own financial interests into policy. It just so happens they decide to ban immigrants from 7 nations from which 0 deaths on American soil have come, at the same time as NOT implementing bans for countries with other countries where Trump just so HAPPENS to have business? Totally above board, right?

Fake News. Jesus people, do some research.

 

What part of that is fake?

 

That this has anything to do with Trump's financial interests. And that these 7 countries were just magically picked out of a hat based on those interests.

 

 

Here's an interesting and chilling take on the Immigration Ban and the reports (as posters already commented previously) that DHS officials were not respecting the court orders that prevented those bans from taking place:

 

https://medium.com/@yonatanzunger/trial-balloon-for-a-coup-e024990891d5#.rvs7gzhlh

 

 

 

...the administration is testing the extent to which the DHS (and other executive agencies) can act and ignore orders from the other branches of government. This is as serious as it can possibly get: all of the arguments about whether order X or Y is unconstitutional mean nothing if elements of the government are executing them and the courts are being ignored.

 

Yesterday was the trial balloon for a coup d’état against the United States. It gave them useful information.

The case made here is not too far fetched, especially when one takes into account how many Federal vacancies and dismissals have occurred. And this, coupled with the theory that Trump is using this action as a way to find out who is loyal to the United States or the Trump Administration (with the explicit purpose of replacing the former with more of the latter) does not bode well for our country.

 

Also, going back to the 'golden showers' dossier...

 

On Wednesday, Reuters reported (in great detail) how 19.5% of Rosneft, Russia’s state oil company, has been sold to parties unknown. This was done through a dizzying array of shell companies, so that the most that can be said with certainty now is that the money “paying” for it was originally loaned out to the shell layers by VTB (the government’s official bank), even though it’s highly unclear who, if anyone, would be paying that loan back; and the recipients have been traced as far as some Cayman Islands shell companies.

 

Why is this interesting? Because the much-maligned Steele Dossier (the one with the golden showers in it) included the statement that Putin had offered Trump 19% of Rosneft if he became president and removed sanctions. The reason this is so interesting is that the dossier said this in July, and the sale didn’t happen until early December. And 19.5% sounds an awful lot like “19% plus a brokerage commission.”

 

 

Yeah...interesting indeed.

 

It's amazing how the pro-Trump folks seem to have scurried away from the light of this and other threads as of late. :-|

 

What's the point in even commenting at this point? There's no way folks are really going to listen to anything. Everyone is so worked up it's just not worth it to me.

 

I for one would like a dissenting opinion if only to check my own. Are you in agreement with the ban, and the wall BRI?

 

I'll throw mine out there.

I am for the temporary Immigration Ban. I do not think it is a "Muslim Ban"...if it was then why not just shut down all countries listed as having majority Muslim population? I am hopeful that the temporary ban will allow the Feds to revamp/fix/address/whatever the vetting processes that happen for those from the 7 countries (and possibly all countries) before they enter our country legally. I do not think it was implemented fairly. The whole Green Card fiasco was/is a mess and had to be fixed ASAP.

There is an argument that Trump needed to slam this EO in as to not allow bad guys from saying, "well, the US is going to put this in effect in two weeks lets go now." Weak argument, yes.

If this turns into more than a temp ban, then I would need to hear some very good justification for it before I would even think to support the extension. I am not a blind follower to Trump and his policies.

There's a few problems I have with immigration at large:

1. Our path to citizenship sucks and it's way too hard for good people to enter the country legally.

2. Our ability to prevent bad immigration sucks and it's way too easy for bad people to enter the country illegally.

3. People who attempt to solve problem #1 by exacerbating #2 are part of the problem.

4. People who don't want to solve #1 until #2 is solved are part of the problem.

I remember thinking in 2011/2012 that then President Obama could redeem himself in the upcoming election by pushing an issue that was very ripe in my opinion: solving #1 and #2 with a broad immigration reform. He (nor did Romney) talk about immigration.

I have been hoping (without real justification) that Trump will solve #1 and #2 by pushing broad immigration reform through congress. I am becoming less hopeful now that it seems like he can just solve #2 and not even needing to address #1 via compromise.

I think this poorly thought out ban order was the beginning of us seeing Trump weaving his own financial interests into policy. It just so happens they decide to ban immigrants from 7 nations from which 0 deaths on American soil have come, at the same time as NOT implementing bans for countries with other countries where Trump just so HAPPENS to have business? Totally above board, right?

 

 

Things that make you go hmmm...

Those countries (Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and UAE) have the infrastructure in place to allow them to identify and screen who is getting on their airplanes perhaps?

 

You're reaching here. And you left Azerbaijan off the list.

 

Maybe a little as that was my thought on a possible reason before I actually did a little homework on the subject. Trump didn't hand pick those 7 countries. The Executive Order contains this language:

It says that it seeks “Suspension of Issuance of Visas and Other Immigration Benefits to Nationals of Countries of Particular Concern.” It also says“I hereby proclaim that the immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States of aliens from countries referred to in section 217(a)(12) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12), would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and I hereby suspend entry into the United States, as immigrants and nonimmigrants, of such persons for 90 days from the date of this order.”

The Department of Homeland Security targeted these seven countries over the last years as countries of concern. In February 2016 “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 countries.” It noted “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.”

https://sethfrantzman.com/2017/01/28/obamas-administration-made-the-muslim-ban-possible-and-the-media-wont-tell-you/

Senator Chris Murphy from CT wrote an op ed today. It's worth reading for a lot of reasons. Here, he lays out the case that this has made America less safe. I wholeheartedly agree.

 

This is why todays proposal is likely to get Americans killed.

 

ISIS, the most dangerous of a global array of radical Islamic terrorist groups, is in retreat. (...)

 

But ISIS has a second purpose to take part in an imagined global struggle of civilizations between Christians and Muslims. President Obama and President Bush before him knew the danger of stoking talk of war between east and west. Obama knew how important this kind of talk was to ISISs recruitment and expansion, and he went out of his way to tamp it down.

 

Trump has now handed ISIS a path to rebirth. They can and will use his announcement today as confirmation that America is at war with Muslims, especially those Muslims living in desperate circumstances. Their recruitment bulletin boards will light up with new material. Their entreaties to would-be lone wolf attackers in America will have new energy and purpose.

 

No, you worded it correctly. As long as folks do their own homework on the Executive Order as it pertains to Temp ban vs. Perma ban.

As far as getting Americans killed in your quote above, I am not really sure if this does any more harm than the past 'x' years of boots on the ground/bombing/drone strikes.

SIV holders should be exempt from this 'ban', IMO.

Things that make you go hmmm...

Mexico knows it's in a bad spot with no leverage.

Here is a very informative article that goes against some of the things I have said here.

 

Nice find there.

You still haven't explained why the wall is actually a good investment and not just a hare-brained campaign promise.

 

Or why shaking down an ally for something they don't want and plenty of Americans don't want is a good idea in the first place.

1. Votes? Guaranteed re-election?

2. These import taxes are going to be across the board...not just on goods coming from Mexico. So we'd be shaking down all our allies and more. (edit: to level the playing field when it comes to global import taxation?}

 

Let's say Trump slaps on a 20% export tax and the media and libcucks are like "American people paying for wall!"

 

Now Trump has his import tax (for manufacturing / jobs ect) and says "ok ya ya we'll tax all the remittance going to mexico!"

 

Libcucks says "omg this is just American money you are taxing omg!"

 

Now Trump has his import tax, and is taxing remittance, and says "ok ok ok, i'm going to triple the price of Visa's and charge 10 bucks for non-american border crossings!"

 

Libcucks say "BLAM!" cause they just ate a bullet.

 

I write it in a jokey way obviously. Maybe it will be a 5% import tax and a bunch of other things, but we're getting that wall and Mexico is going to pay for it in either cash, pain or both.

I have no clue what you just said.

 

Please speak English and explain how Mexico is going to pay for it.

 

Sure thing...no more humor from me tonight. Mexico's economy is entirely dependent on the United States. Mexico exports about $300 billion worth of goods to the United States each year. When you size up this amount against Mexico's total GDP of about $1.1 trillion, it becomes quite clear that without access to the United States market, Mexico's economy would fall to pieces. Now as you might have guessed, this is not a two way street. United States exports to Mexico totaled about $240 billion versus a $19 trillion GDP. Losing access to the Mexican markets would hurt the US but it's something we can take in stride if need be. As you can clearly see, the United States holds all the leverage in this relationship.

So the proposal floated today by White House Press Secretary was to impose a tariff on all imports from Mexico. Let's say 20% for the sake of simplicity. So Mexico, on its $300 billion in exports, would be paying the US government $60 billion in tariffs. Current estimates peg the cost of the wall around $10 billion, a drop in the bucket of the revenue raised by that tariff. One counterargument might be that Mexico would impose their own tariff. Well, considering the $60 billion trade deficit I previously mentioned, the United States government would still be walking away with $12 billion in net revenue. Also keep in mind that as I mentioned before, the United States holds all the leverage here. Mexico cannot aggressively pursue a trade war with the United States because it would devastate their economy. The terms of the agreement are essentially ours to dictate.

When imposing such a tariff you run the risk of passing on the cost of the tariff to the consumers. For example, instead of a $5 bottle of Corona staying $5 with $1 going towards the tariff and $4 to the merchant, that cost would hypothetically be baked in to become a $6 bottle of Corona. In this hypothetical, marketplace competition would determine whether Mexico is or isn't able to push the cost of the tariff back onto the consumer. For example, if a Mexican firm is selling a widget for $10 a Chinese firm is selling the same widget for $10.20, the Mexican firm has little to no room to increase the price of their product without losing its customer base to the competing firm. Its options will be to continue to sell the widget at $10 and absorb the cost of the tariff or to cease production of the widget. However, if there is no other firm that produces the widget, Mexico can likely get away with selling the widget at $12, though this potentially opens the market to new competitors.

So as you can see here, imposing an import tariff is a plausible way for the US to make Mexico pay for the border wall. However, you can make a reasonable argument that some of the cost of that tariff will be pushed back on to US consumers.

Let's say Trump slaps on a 20% export tax and the media and libcucks are like "American people paying for wall!"

Now Trump has his import tax (for manufacturing / jobs ect) and says "ok ya ya we'll tax all the remittance going to mexico!"

Libcucks says "omg this is just American money you are taxing omg!"

Now Trump has his import tax, and is taxing remittance, and says "ok ok ok, i'm going to triple the price of Visa's and charge 10 bucks for non-american border crossings!"

Libcucks say "BLAM!" cause they just ate a bullet.

I write it in a jokey way obviously. Maybe it will be a 5% import tax and a bunch of other things, but we're getting that wall and Mexico is going to pay for it in either cash, pain or both.

I guess everyone has forgotten that Trump has spent the last year and a half talking about negotiation and negotiating from a position of power. The whinging that some of you are doing about something that amounts to the first volley in a tennis match is ridiculous. Do you honestly think the end result is a permanent 20% tariff that's going to be a drag on our economy?

Learn2Trump bros. Right now he's giving them the stick, the carrot comes later.

A friend of mine from small town Ohio (small business owner) just sent me this:

Sanctuary cities being cut off, making Mattis SecDef, and TPP dropout are all Trump had to do to satisfy the vast majority of us in the middle and we don't need to engage in some giant public jerk off to celebrate that. Anything else that goes on from here on out is extra gravy, as far as I am concerned.

null

I don't agree with some of that, because I never heard ANYWHERE Trump say, "I plan on violating federal employee's first amendments rights and don't want the EPA or other entities speaking on matters that matter to the public, in my first days in office."

I am waiting on the fact check for this. It was reported on CNN tonight that the 'silencing' of Gov't Agencies is Status Quo during a Presidential Transition.

http://fortune.com/2017/01/24/trump-gag-order

"It's not clear how long these gag orders will remain in place, or whether they are simply designed to freeze activity until President Trump's hand-picked staff can issue new regulations for those agencies for posting on social media and interacting with the public."

 

 

I only blame the people who are still defending him today. I'm figuring everybody else has figured it out and we're all on the same team now. Resist.

The issue I have with those of you calling out/blaming Trump voters is that you no longer accept that there is even another opinion other than the one you bought and sold to one another. Though, you don't have to, there are a thousand facts, blogs, and opinion tweets/FBs easily accessible that align with your own and the ones that do not must be evil. It is a cult of personality with a doctrine as dangerously unstable and hypocritical as the worst religious movements and all done in the guise of making the world a better for place for those that you have deemed worthy.

 

You have become the monster you fought to defeat and are becoming the fascist oppressors and are wholly incapable of seeing it.

 

I totally understand/accept that there are many other opinions. Nobody here on this board influences me, and I'm not ignorant enough to not look at opposing views and try to understand them.

 

I'm not sure where you stand on things politically GM - are you watching the actions taken by leadership and seeing their comments and behavior and not growing concerned? If you aren't why? And if you are, that's all I'm saying. I am having a hard time with anybody (R or D ... Trump/Hillary/Other voter) not seeing some of the moves as aggressive and against our way of life and what we stand for.

 

I can totally admit that I had issue with Trump from the beginning because his core beliefs do not align to mine at all. His politics and behavior on the trail only cemented my feelings, and his actions and the people he has surrounded himself with the last 4 days has confirmed it even more - don't think that makes me a monster or facist oppressor (seems like a dramatic accusation to me).

 

I am alarmed, but I don't think I'm an alarmist (if that makes any sense).

 

If some are alarmed at what they see, then I have no issue with that. I can understand that such strong beliefs exist against Trump. But there are strong beliefs for Mr. Trump and his agenda to MAGA. My deal is that I find it unfortunate that every person on this board that voted for Trump is being blamed for x y and z and need to "own up to your vote". Voters being narrowed into a certain "group"...labeled...etc...hrm

If I see anything that would cause me to totally switch my stance on owning my vote, I will let you know.

I am registered R and voted for Trump...and voted twice for Obama btw.

Edit: I am keeping the Santa hat on my pic until Trump is impeached.

The rest of what you said is also pure fantasy. You clearly don't spend a lot of time conversing with people who aren't Republicans, since you've painted such a wholly inaccurate picture of them.

Paint my picture.

I voted for Trump.

I am for the Immigration Reform/Wall

I am for Business Tax Reform

I am for imposing taxes on goods from US companies shipping their facilities/workers overseas

I am for repeal/replace of ObamaCare

I am for Infrastructure big spending

I am for strengthening the Military

I am not for oppression of US citizens

I am not for censure of press

I am not for kicking out legal immigrants

Am I afraid that we are going to become Nazi America? No. Am I afraid that by promoting America First that we will weaken our stature globally? No.

What do you see? Someone that should be called out on a message board for hoping that the above things come to fruition? Someone who should cower in fear based on the rabble rabble talk of doom and gloom?

Edit: Or do you just see a f'ing moron Trump voter?