[Closed] Donald! Trump!

"has it been posted that Obama restricted movement from these countries in 2011."

Yeah. But a cynic might say Obama wanted it done on the quiet 'cos he didn't think it would play well with his voters, whereas Trump wants to shout it from the rooftop 'cos he thinks it will play well to his voters.

Boris Johnson complaining about WW2 comparisons Being unhelpful in parliament !!!!

😯

Theresa the Appeaser and our cowtowing to trump is an embarrassment

I think that's the point isn't it. Everyone's cool with killing people in Yemen

I don't think everyone is cool with that at all. Particularly in Yemen, which is undoubtedly why Yemen was on the ban list. And I don't think everyone was cool with it under previous administrations either.

My point was that those haven't stopped. It's not drone strikes OR travel bans, it's drone strike AND travel bans. Travel bans may seem minor by comparison, but they effect a hell of a lot more people and could make potential allies into enemies.

What I find odd is that he publicly campaigned on a promise to ban Muslims. It was on his campaign website. He made a big speech about it.
But now that he has brought in this ban he is suddenly angrily telling everyone it's not a #MuslimBan and that the darned liberal MSM are lying. What's that about? Presumably at some point some advisor has pointed out that a ban on religious grounds would be a huge violation of the US constitution?

(Mind you, he also campaigned on killing the civilian families of terrorists, so I'm sure he'll be happy to publicly applaud the women and children killed in that Yemen raid?)

"Various people have posted it, but luckily we've already established that it's untrue."

Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015

poah - Member
has it been posted that Obama restricted movement from these countries in 2011.

Yep several times but it's been exposed as fakenews - spread by trump himself...

Obama issued a ban on visas for unvetted Iraqis for 6 months, it did not include green card holders as trump's does

We gave up our bollocks after WW2 you may be surprised that they don't grow back... don't expect any UK politician to incur the wrath of Donald (we need his sodium chicken don't ya know)

Please nobody state Brexit indicates bollocks it's the opposite.

"I don't think everyone is cool with that at all."

Everyone's cool was a very poor choice of phrase, my point was relatively less concerned.

There's a million strong petition against the Ban on travel from Countries of Concern. Plus protests in the Uk. There has been barely a whisper about the Yemen bombing.

Both during the Trump administration.

so Obama didn't restrict travel from Iraq in 2011 for 6 months then?

He did but only unvetted refugees not green card holders

Obama's 2011 restrictions were only on refugees and SIV holders, it wasn't a blanket ban (and at no time did the flow of these groups actually stop). It's a ridiculous comparison

outofbreath - Member

Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015

...didn't ban anyone and only affected people who were eligible for the VWP- ie, nationals of countries in good regard, including us. But even if affected, it just meant you had to apply for a visa like travellers from all countries outwith the VWP do anyway

But we already covered all that.

I understand what you are getting at outofbreath and I'm not sure what the answer is.

I suspect there is a bit of cognitive dissonance at play - something happening in a far of land versus something happening at your local airport?

And I think many people accept that drone strikes etc are a [i]little[/i] more nuanced if you accept the narrative that they are targeting "bad dudes" who live and hide with civilians. Plus criticising the military is seen as very unpatriotic by a lot of Americans.

As an anecdote, I randomly watched the pivotal scene from [url=

of Engagement on YouTube[/url] the other day, where the marine commander orders his troops to open fire and massacre the civilian crowd in Yemen because there are snipers hiding amongst them. Read the comments under that video for an insight into how some people view that (fictional) action. Scary!

The thing i haven't heard at all is if banning certain people from entering the USA actually reduces the terror risk?

I mean, an organisation like ISIS has the resources to get people into the country surely, or to simply recruit people with the right passports??

"...didn't ban anyone"

You said there were no restrictions of any kind. There were. I've identified them, you've now admitted there were, so I'm happy.

Maxtorque - they can probably find recruits with US passports and easy access to guns.

It strikes me that this ban is a public slap in the face for the intelligence services. If trump trusted them to do their job and spot the "bad dudes" he wouldn't need to pull up the drawbridge.

Well at least it gives his adoring followers the feeling that he's tackling the bad dudes. In 90 days he'll probably just say "OK we've figured out what the heck is going on", lift the ban and pretend it made a difference.

"Max torque - they can probably find recruits with US passports and easy access to guns."

Or just go via another country.

I don't think this law is intended to solve any problem beyond the problem of making Trump look like he's 'doing something' to people who might vote for him. ...and maybe in a democracy, that's a good reason.

"In 90 days he'll probably just say "OK we've figured out what the heck is going on", lift the ban and pretend it made a difference."

This, I think. They'll tweak the visa application system in some trivial way and Trump will be able to say he sorted it all out, when Obama couldn't.

Even so I'm not sure this whole farce will be a vote winner.

Maxtorque - they can probably find recruits with US passports and easy access to guns.

I don't think they can, certainly not easily, otherwise you'd be seeing attacks on American soil much more frequently.
The travel ban is just a bone to his supporters. I very much doubt it'll make American's safer, but it might make some of them "feel" safer. Does anyone honestly think Trump and the people who elected him care about world opinion on this (the world's left opinion mostly) or about our petitions.

thepurist
they can probably find recruits with US passports and easy access to guns.

Don't be silly, it's not like America is overflowing with cheap, easily accessable high power firearms now is it. oh, wait a minute..........

The list of countries has been lifted straight from Obama's "cause for concern list".

Sam Harris on the ban, worth 3 mins to read imho

https://www.samharris.org/blog/item/a-few-thoughts-on-the-muslim-ban

Sean Spicer is live

he sounds just like this

DrJ - Member

Malayasia caused a fuss last year when they denied visas to the Isreali youth windsurfing team who had entered the World Championships

Malaysia is an Arab country? Everyday's a schoolday!

Jamba did not say that.

Jamba is correct regarding M'sia.

Yes, M'sians (proven in the passport) are banned from traveling to Israel.
Israeli are also banned from entering the country.
Discrimination (in your face type) is a way of life in M'sia but if you are tourist you don't see that ...

outofbreath - Member

You said there were no restrictions of any kind. There were. I've identified them, you've now admitted there were, so I'm happy.

Oh come [i]on[/i]. Having to apply for a visa like everyone in the world outwith the VWP zone is what we're talking about. That's not an extra restriction, it's business as normal for 6 out of 7 of the countries in the world.

The thing i haven't heard at all is if banning certain people from entering the USA actually reduces the terror risk?

I think we did cover that one, and in any case the answer appears to be that this ban wouldn't affect anybody who has committed terrorist acts in the USA since [b]and including[/b] 9/11.

Clearly it is just pandering to his supporters, but we need to distinguish here between his core support who will vote for him in 2020 even (or possibly even more) if he commits multiple acts of genocide, and those who just happened to vote for him this time (because they wanted something different?) The former group are the ones supporting him on social media etc. and whilst he appears to be happily doing what that bunch (who are mostly bigoted in some way) want, they're irrelevant. The latter group might pay attention to protests and be influenced by them.

But it's far more than that - Trump didn't win because lots of people voted for him, he won because lots of people didn't vote for Hillary. All that is required is for the protests to influence some of that group who are inclined more towards the protestors

Jamba is correct regarding M'sia.

Yes, M'sians

Oh! You little tinker!

However the original accusation by the lefties was that the list of countries involved was driven by Trumps business interests

[b]That[/b] allegation is completely and utterly shut down by the fact that the list of countries of concern was drawn up under the Obama government,

So, Northwind, Aracer - would you accept that the outrage bus that was set off in light of that allegation was wrong/false/#fakenews

A few people said that, sure, and they were wrong. But they weren't speaking for "the lefties" you know. And now a lot of people want to use it to divert from the real story.

outofbreath - Member

I don't think this law is intended to solve any problem beyond the problem of making Trump look like he's 'doing something' to people who might vote for him. ...and maybe in a democracy, that's a good reason.

I don't know why you keep banging on about Trump only acting the way he has been in the last week to win votes. And also apparently claiming that it's all working out very well for him.

First of all the election campaign is over - and he got sufficient votes to win it.

And secondly, Trump isn't simply alienating people across the world in foreign countries he is also alienating voters in the US. In fact the disapproval he is now facing from US voters is unprecedented.

[url= http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/01/30/gallup-donald-trump-reaches-majority-disapproval-rating-in-record-time/ ]Gallup: Donald Trump reaches majority disapproval rating in record time[/url]

Note :

[b][i] For reference, it wasn’t until August 2011 that Barack Obama reached a majority disapproval in the daily survey, while George W. Bush didn’t reach a majority disapproval until his second term in June 2005, according to Gallup’s data.[/b][/i]

Furthermore I doubt that Trump gives a monkeys whether he is loved or loathed, just as long as people notice him. He craves attention and power, something he's had his entire life.

Trump is a performer, a showman, and a vain egotistic man. As I've said previously I don't doubt that he is highly intelligent, what is in doubt imo is his mental health. I think it's because he behaves irrationally and does things which are clearly damaging to the US that people assume that he must be stupid.

In that context I think an analogy with Hitler probably has some merit. No one would suggest that Hitler was "stupid" although his mental health is another matter. Hitler too was motivated not so much by rational thought but by the need to satisfy his ego and a desire for power, control, and influence.

Now I am not suggesting for a minute that Trump is "like" Hitler or as "bad" as Hitler, I don't of course believe that - Trump is nothing like Hitler. I am simply pointing out that someone can be highly intelligent and yet also irrational. Don't assume that because Trump is intelligent, and successful, that everything he does is rational and/or not destructive.

IMHO

People do need to drop the business interests "justification". Trump ran for President to satisfy his ego. Gates, Allen, Dell, Buffett, Zuckerberg all have far more money than Trump but he is POTUS and he did it against all the odds.

edit: I see ernie's post crossed mine re Trumps raison d'etre ... he is going to do what he said he'd do as he sees thats the way to get relected in 2020.

jambalaya - Member

he is going to do what he said he'd do

What, make America great again?

Methinks not. But we'll have to wait and see. It's very early days but his first week doesn't imo appear to have been particularly inspirational in suggesting that he will achieve that goal.

"Trump didn't win because lots of people voted for him, he won because lots of people didn't vote for Hillary."

Yeah, important not to lose sight of that.

As an aside I think concerns about a second term are a bit premature. He'll be 75 looking to serve 'till 80 and re-election depends to some degree on his first term not being an utter cluster-****. It's not looking that good good for him so far.

Just living to 80 is an achievement, let alone leading the USA on your twiglight years.

worth 3 mins to read imho

3 minutes wasted

Not even the most liberal of liberals is going to say extreme islamists and/or terrorists are a good thing. They're not going to deny that a problem exists.

However unlike the most right of rightists, they are smart enough to know not all Muslims are extremists and/or terrorists. A blanket ban does nothing. If anything it makes the longer term situation worse.

People do need to drop the business interests "justification".

Does ninfan listen to you? Because he's the only one still chewing that bone. Given i got name checked by ninfan up there, I can't be sure I've never suggested anything like that, but I've certainly dropped it if I ever did - it is a distraction from the real issue, which is i guess why ninfan is clinging to it grimly.

Just in case he needs it spelling out (he usually does) no, that wasn't the crux of the complaints against this order at all. Not even by the lefties I don't think, though I couldn't speak for them

Oh and of course regarding #fakenews then it's tricky when that effectively originates in the office of potus

outofbreath - Member
As an aside I think concerns about a second term are a bit premature. He'll be 75 looking to serve 'till 80 and re-election depends to some degree on his first term not being an utter cluster-****. It's not looking that good good for him so far.

Let's hope during his terms all those interfering busy bodies will be hammered to hilt given the opportunity.

If he serves two terms, which I think he will, at least during that time the world will not be screwed by the so called pc and those interfering foreign policies.

If the Western countries are trying it on again by trying to impose their morals in Asean and S.E.Asia, I can assure you they will be heading for Russia and China with the exception of Singapore (only Western supporter).

Therefore, Trump is the only one that can actually bring good relationship to Asean & S.E. Asia by not getting involved. The more he stays out by not intervening they more they like to do business with him and the better the relationship. All the previous administrations nobody gives a flying dog about them as they are all seen as bullies, same goes to EU and the affiliates. Stay out and stay gone.

A few people said that, sure, and they were wrong. But they weren't speaking for "the lefties" you know

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

"Trump didn't win because lots of people voted for him, he won because lots of people didn't vote for Hillary."

Yeah, important not to lose sight of that.

It was a factor but it shouldn't be overstated. Hillary Clinton got almost the identical amount of votes as Obama got 4 years earlier, Trump got 2 million votes more than Mitt Romney did 4 years earlier. The turnout this time was very slightly higher.

There is no doubt however that Hillary Clinton did alienate a lot of potential Democrat voters, which another candidate almost certainly would not have done - especially as the rival Republican candidate was Trump. Clinton was an appalling choice imo.

Therefore, Trump is the only one that can actually bring good relationship to Asean & S.E. Asia by not getting involved.

eh?

the next pledge he needs to fulfill would be that trade war with China...

the shitshow keeps on rolling

It was a factor but it shouldn't be overstated. Hillary Clinton got almost the identical amount of votes as Obama got 4 years earlier,

I'll admit I haven't studied it, but thought it was quite a significant thing - was it just the swing states where it was more an issue (and lots of "anyone but Trump" voting in places like NY and California where they were prepared to ignore how rubbish Hillary was)?

kimbers - Member

Therefore, Trump is the only one that can actually bring good relationship to Asean & S.E. Asia by not getting involved.

eh?

the next pledge he needs to fulfill would be that trade war with China...

the shitshow keeps on rolling

That's exactly what it should be same goes to EU.

Stay out and stay gone.

Boarding I think there is a strong dialogue about how Islamic Terrorism isn't really a problem, look at the frequent posts here comparing deaths with gun control issues etc for example. Then imagine that dialed up as the Americans do.

What, make America great again?

I meant more along the lines of the wall, greater military funding, infrastructure funding & built with US steel, immigration control, bringing jobs back to the US

For years people have been complaining about US intervention abroad, I think Trump's US doing less is going to raise even more protest

That allegation is completely and utterly shut down by the fact that the list of countries of concern was drawn up under the Obama government,

So, Northwind, Aracer - would you accept that the outrage bus that was set off in light of that allegation was wrong/false/#fakenews

I think Trump's US doing less is going to raise even more protest

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/donald-trump-us-military-attack-yemen-civilians-women-children-dead-a7553121.html

if this is doing less, then yeah I think itll not go well

As the likes of homeland were not consulted How do we know he had enough intelligence to make the call based on facts?

I'll try and give you a proper answer on that one.

I suspect that, behind the scenes, what we have just seen with the immigration issue is a clear stamping of authority - that it's disingenuous to allege that homeland wasn't consulted, but instead that the incoming administration was met by a similar response to the Tories in 2010 where every change was seen as impossible and heads of public sector departments sought to delay and water down proposals to the point of open rebellion ("no, we will have to strategise how achievable this is, and it will take 6-12 months to impose any changes")

I reckon that the new leadership decided that this needed to be nipped in the bud, while they still had the advantage of 'shock of capture' and before the blocking opposition had time to act. so signed the order with immediate effect, so that recalcitrant departments had no choice to move on it, hence some short term chaos for long term results.