“we’re going to start winning on every level. I say it kiddingly, but I mean it 100 percent: We’re going to win, win, win! We’re going to win so much, you’re going to get sick and tired of it. You’re going to say “Mr. President, we can’t take it anymore, we’re winning too much! Please, we don’t want to win that much anymore, we can’t take it, Mr. President!” And I’m not going to care — we’re going to keep winning! Because we’re going to make America great again.”
Topsy
Well that’s fair enough then. Fairly emphatic.
seekingsusan
So, nothing on The Irish Times about that paper’s disgraceful treatment of a female employee (sub editor) who was a new mother which was on the front page of The Sunday Times. Instead we have Irish Times female journalists complaining about Trump et al. How hypocritical is that?
Shayna
Just caught the tail end of Una Mullally’s “I’m Irish” thing on RTE – Jesus! And you wonder about the IT editorial? Clearly, Ireland isn’t ready for women – you know, like – half the population (roughly)?
Sheik Yahbouti
Jeez, how many identities have you got?
EightersGonnaEight
Nothing new there.
Female white privilege.
Shayna
I’m not sure if you’re being sympathetic, or sarcastic – but, I’m pretty sure there’s no such thing as female white privilege..
Not sure how that proves anything clamps, other than the fact that there is a huge wealth gap in the US. That it predominantly seems to affect minorities or black communities, and that this is limiting how far they can go in life, when compared with a white family seems like the established status quo over there. What has that to do with women?
See the comment below it, put the two together… you’ll get a ‘bingo’ line and win a prize. That prize being… she is a white privileged woman. Shayna is a modern-feminist, if past commenting can be a measure to go by, and so she knows this.
Irish politicians losing their minds over Trumps immigration order. An attack on human rights I hear them say.. The latest official figures show that 7,148 people (including over 2,500 children) are homeless in Ireland which represents a massive 91% hike on the figures seen two years ago. What about their Human Rights? The filth in Leinster House are in no position to be lecturing other Heads of State about Human Rights when Irish citizens are literally dying on our streets. #politicalscum
Shayna
Hey – I’m not Una – I assure you!
Sheik Yahbouti
Not you – the “susan”.
Shayna
Sorry, clearly I think everything’s about me?
Compassion Cash
Who is Susan?
Bertie Blenkinsop
Are you Desperately Seeking her?
Compassion Cash
Always possible.
Shayna
As an Irish type – Trump’s immigration policy, which he’s drawn under “Executive Order” (The President does as he pleases), it doesn’t bode well. I’ve got family in the U.S – sure, for real – Irish. Going back generations, everyone (who reads this site) has some sort of affinity to the U.S?
Trump starts with 7/8 countries – I’m of an age that still remembers!
Increasing Displacement
Idiots call for Kenny not to go.
Bet non of them work in the 1000s of American companies here.
Increasing Displacement
Ah to the cheat Farah….boo hooo. Become an American citizen then. You live there don’t you?
Not saying it’s right by the way, but all the moaning is getting tiresome when there are obvious solutions.
martco
what are your obvious solutions, do tell?
Formerly known as @ireland.com
Mo can get his drugs sent to him in a jiffy bag, couriered by someone from British Cycling.
Increasing Displacement
:-)
Increasing Displacement
You want me to go through every problem that currently exists, no just that clown Farahs and give my solution? You can go fornicate yourself with a rusty iron bar. So you can.
bisted
…bet I can guess your final solution…
martco
is that reply for me?
what’s the problem telling me about these great obvious solutions then…please expand on that because personally I’m lost, thanks.
or is it double maths now and you’ve had to put your phone away?
Increasing Displacement
I’ve identified you as someone not worth replying to after this notification.
Listrade
” Become an American citizen then. You live there don’t you?”
Ummm, green card holders are affected too. It isn’t just refugees and new immigrants it is a travel ban on all those from those countries irrespective of US status.
rotide
No it’s not.
American citizens with dual nationality are unaffected (although someone, priebus i think, said that would be looked at later). Legal aliens (green card holders) were initially affected but they rolled back on that over the weekend.
Listrade
My mistake on American Citizens. However, the only climb down on green cards is that they will be considered on a case by case basis. That isn’t a total roll back.
Increasing Displacement
So…he’s not an American citizen.
He runs for the United Kingdom and states this is his nationality.
But isn’t from there and doesn’t live there.
He’s Somali.
Hmmm…talk about complicating matters for yourself.
And now he’s complaining he can’t get into the US because people from his country of birth and childhood are temporarily banned?
Must be very tough for him having the democratically elected president of a country he’s not from [i]temporary[/i] cause this hiccup in his plans to live where he feels like it and claim what he wants.
Take some more drugs Farah, it’ll ease the pain.
Listrade
He is training in the US as do many European sports people because of the facilities in the US. This is done under a visa. He moved to the UK aged 8. His Dad was born in London and a British citizen, his grandad had british citizenship. He was born in Somali. What exactly is complicated about that?
Increasing Displacement
He is actually training in Ethiopia at the moment.
I don’t need a history lesson.
It’s pretty obvious.
If you have money OR you can run or jump you’re welcome.
Otherwise get the boat.
Sam
You imagine the CEO of an American company would … what? Shut up a profitable office in a tax haven, just because temporarily in power politicians have a spat?
Has that _ever_ happened here?
Obama’s administration sold weapons to Saudi Arabia for the war on Yemen, slaughtering thousands of Yemeni women and children…… but the left sat silent… no outrage, no mass protests.
Trump puts a ban on entry to the US, inhibiting some people’s rights to free movement (with via, if normally required) and the left goes ballistic.
I really do have a strong hate for either scenario but this latest “politicisation” for want of a better word, of this is revolting.
– – – – – further reading….
It’s not a Mulsim ban… as these countries with the most Muslims are not on the list…
Indonesia 205m
Pakistan 178m
India 172m
Banladesh 145m
Nigeria 74m
Some other trivia for the selectively outraged….
Charles Shumer who can be found cryin’ on TV over the temporary travel ban supported bombing of Lybia … which lead to deaths (not a ban) of thousands of Muslims including women and children
Canada’s recent extended welcome to those affected by US travel ban…. excludes single males… ask yourself why?
‘– Obama used the same laws Trump is now using six times to ban people from mostly Muslim countries… ‘
Funny thing. Obama enacted those bans in consultation with Congress, in compliance with the relevant laws and as a response to actionable intelligence. Contrast Trump’s overbroad, extremist, draconian diktat which caused widespread confusion and chaos, sparked global protest, is damaging international relations, and has ignited a constitutional crisis. Every time the ‘Obama did it too’ thing is raised, Obama comes off better in the comparison – measured, competent, decisive, responsible, limited and legally compliant. He looks like a statesman, and by extension, so does Clinton. Well done.You’re enhancing their legacy. Polishing them, as it were. Golf clap.
It’s not actually hypocrisy if you’re making up the motivations of the people you’re accusing out of, well, bullpoo.
‘It’s not a Mulsim ban…’
He campaigned on a platform of banning Muslims. Benefit of the doubt here is bullpoo.
Nigel
Oh, wait, good job framing the narrative – Obama didn’t ‘ban’ anyone.
The consequences of the ban also only affects Muslims i.e. statement that Christians and other minority religions will be fasttracked. Ergo only Muslims.
You state at the start Obama did the same thing and then post links to articles that show he didn’t do the same thing. Do you read the links you post or do you deliberately misrepresent them?
First. There was a lot of anger at what Obama did. I remember it. I remember having my own concerns too. I remember expressing those concerns. I even posted a link yesterday that shows there was an adverse reaction. As there was to a lot of Obama’s policies that the “left” disagreed with.
Second, Obama didn’t ban anyone. The order halted visa applications while they conducted extra checks on those individuals. At the specific request of intelligence, they asked for additional time while they processed finger prints on IEDs to check against those granted visas. The order halted gave more time to those currently undergoing visa assessment.
Third, it wasn’t a sweeping ban, those who had already been approved could still travel, green card holders could still travel.
Its not even remotely comparable apart from the fact that it involved Iraq and visas.
There were no protests because there didn’t need to be. You didn’t have doctors and professors who had green cards deported back to Iran. You didn’t have hundreds of people who had already had visas approved suddenly turned away. You didn’t have all this going on without any right to or access to legal representation. Under Obama’s order, your application was delayed, under Trump, your approved visa was revoked.
Then the courts halted the order and there was a direct order from the White House to ignore the order and border control management continued to breach a court order.
Pick your battles Clampers and don’t deliberately mislead and misrepresent your spurious argument. You wanted the “left” to give Trump credit for TTP, but continue to defend…sorry offer “alternative” perspective wrapped up in a sweeping dig at the left on anything negative he has done. There is nothing about this order that can be dressed up as positive or excused based on any previous president. Nothing. Your effort to keep polishing a turd to fit in with your own issues with the “left” is just leaving you with a great stinking turd in your hands and nothing else. Everything that the “left” worried about is happening right now and right in front of you. That can’t be dressed up or polished. It is what it is and you should be worried too.
Of course this order is OTT and stupid because of it’s sweeping approach. That’s what the last link was intended to show.
I even stated so…. “A very good comparison, from the plethora of bullpoo out there, on the similarities / differences between Obama’s ban and Trump’s…”
So it’s a tactical application issue in the difference… if you read it. And yes there was anger at Obama, so what, there’s anger here too. But it’s with the extent of the application. The application of the ban is different, the laws invoked are not. – that’s in the link. The one I stated where the differences can be viewed.
It’s not a Muslim ban as there are Muslim’s with visas getting through. It’s difficult, but they are getting in, and some are being detained or sent back. It’s badly applied.
And the claims it’s down to Trump’s business interests which is still being bandied about as a reason is also bull.
I’m not polishing a turd, Obama is the turd that’s been polished already by the left, thanks. Trump’s a muppet, always was.
And yes, Even Bernie Sanders gave Trump a hattip, and I will too on the TTP/TTIP.
And Trump’s ban is temporary as per the.. Act… can’t recall the number of it. The same one Obama used.
You want me to have said sh** I never said… suck an egg Listrade. The “left” is demented. And yes, I do have issue with that, absolutely… it’s gone full-retard (sorry Nigel) and I don’t bloody like it. If the hard-right is to be stopped, it won’t be through bullsh**, as eight years of Obama showed.
Listrade
You give Trump hat tips. accuse the “left” (define please) of not giving a hat tip on one single issue (not all were against TTP for starters), you say you do so from a position of impartiality. But even in the face of egregiously poor and hate-filled policies, your response is “yeah but Obama” or “here’s what someone said on twitter”. That isn’t balance, that is defending Trump. That is polishing a turd because you’ve made a bogeyman out of the whole left and either just want to be contrarian or genuinely have consciously sided with the right in order to make a point.
Yeah but, nothing. Explain why even mention Obama? Why mention the Obama ban? “it was made under the same law”, so what? What exactly is the link? This is a line used by Trump yesterday and his fascist supporters. As you point out it came based on different circumstances and specific. And was also met with anger. Obama’s policy on refugees? Also met with anger. His failure to live up to those promises? Also met with anger. The “left” weren’t, as you suggest weren’t as overwhelmingly happy with Obama during his time as you make out.
“Not a Muslim Ban” see Giuliani’s comments on how it was developed. It was a Muslim ban, but you can’t just do a Muslim ban so they had to retrofit it to something to be in effect a Muslim ban. Criminalisation of drugs wasn’t racist because it was broad and sweeping. The intention was racist though and overtly so.
It is what it is. Trump wanted to ban Muslims, he stood there and told us he would. But Wah! What about Hillary’s emails? Wah! Pizzagate! Obviously you can’t actually just ban Muslims so you put out something that is broad and sweeping, but in effect the only ones affected are Muslims. The motivation for it was to ban Muslims. It bans Muslims. QED.
Hi Neil… didn’t realise you read all the news. And you know all the words. And used all the crayons.
Go away.
Nigel
‘And the claims it’s down to Trump’s business interests which is still being bandied about as a reason is also bull.’
I love how imprecise the argument you’re supposed to be refuting is. Trump’s ban conspicuously avoided covering countries he has business dealings with. Why would anyone with a brain not have a problem with that?
Stop Nigel, go away with that argument, it’s clearly based on the Obama list.
Nigel
Supposedly based on that list, but so what? It’s a glaring conflict of interest.
Nigel
‘So it’s a tactical application issue in the difference… if you read it. And yes there was anger at Obama, so what, there’s anger here too. But it’s with the extent of the application. The application of the ban is different, the laws invoked are not. – that’s in the link. The one I stated where the differences can be viewed.’
This is such a stumbling effort to find equivalence between Obama’s measures and Trump’s. Obama managed to invoke the laws without setting everyhting on fire, Trump turned the whole thing into a dangerous clown catastrophe – otherwise totally the same.
‘And yes there was anger at Obama, so what, there’s anger here too.’
The entire basis for your hand-waving is that there wasn’t anger at the stuff Obama did. That’s so what.
Saying one thing means something completely different on another tangent on planet Nigel.
Oh …just stop already.
Nigel
What ‘one thing means something completely different’ here? You’re being very unclear. ‘If the hard right is to be stopped’ doesn’t reflect any sort of wish, desire or effort on your part for the hard-right to be stopped? Or you just want me to stop, and Trump’s critics to stop?
ahjayzis
X is a terrible human being, to be clear.
And now to be balanced here’s twelve paragraphs on why the opposition to X is awful, malevolent, wicked, tricksy and probably paedophiles.
But X is definitely bad. Just not as bad as everything else.
Maybe needs less sorghum
Some people just like arguing for the sake of it. Digging a deeper and deeper hole …
From this list… which ones are failed states and most likely to deliver dodgy characters…. it looks like the list Trump used is of those that are failed, or as good as failed states (let’s not get started, on who caused them to fail)
Just look at crime stats on almost anything. 5 to 6% is a lot.
21% is through the bloody roof.
I’m surprised Tunisia was so high myself.
Listrade
Not crime stats though, they are “thought” stats as in “feel positively about Isis.” Massive difference. You cannot base policy on “thought”.
To put it into perspective with similar “thought” stats, 50% of Americans disapprove of Trump. If 21% “positive feelings about Isis” is through the bloody roof, then 50% just overtook Voyager.
Check out chart on p607 regarding those having a lot of sympathy / empathy for NI paramilitaries.
I’m not trying to say the two attitudes, one towards NI paramilitaries of either side, and those with positive attitudes to ISIS, are mirrors but it is very much note worthy, I do believe.
My only point is that any positive leaning is fuel for the violent group in question.
[ If you believe use of this study is completely wrong in this instance, please do let me know why you might think so. And if you convince me, I’ll drop it, but at present I do think it note worthy ]
Listrade
I don’t know what point your trying to make with the study to say if it is wrong or not. Is it to justify the ban? Not sure because you post without context.
Of course attitudes to ISIS are an issue, that is why there are thorough checks on anyone applying for a visa.
Do you support or agree with the ban and/or are you saying someone’s personal thouhhts is sufficient to justify banning all citizens from a country?
The reports are valid, but only for screening, not banning. The banning isn’t even consitent with that chart.
” I don’t know what point your trying to make with the study to say if it is wrong or not. Is it to justify the ban? Not sure because you post without context. ”
I’m putting it in here, as note worthy, but by no means direct comparison to show how sympathy / positive attitude toward violent groups lends that group support. And that only small percentage of support can mean a lot.
” Do you support or agree with the ban and/or are you saying someone’s personal thouhhts is sufficient to justify banning all citizens from a country? ” The ban is like using a sledge hammer when a panel beater was required… and is doing damage.
” The reports are valid, but only for screening, not banning. The banning isn’t even consistent with that chart. ” Again, the sledgehammer… but, the ‘ban’ is temporary and not permanent, which is a small sliver of silver… in a mess of a situation.
I think the whole ‘ban’ was cart before the horse stuff. They should have announced ‘tighter controls’ on new visas coming… with temp bans for those who don’t pass a first round of security inspection. Full ban if don’t pass further security.
Again, I think the whole ‘ban’ was cart before the horse stuff. And just the word ‘ban’ sent many reeling as if it were a permanent ban which I believe helped create the hysteria. It’s been handled cack handedly.
” Of course attitudes to ISIS are an issue, that is why there are thorough checks on anyone applying for a visa. ” …and the orange one said he’d get tougher on those, so he did… but as i said, he’s clearly done so, so very badly, with the worst diplomacy ever.
I throw in the Obama stuff to show that the outrage over trump’s cack handedness is, in my belief, OTT…. especially trashing and protesting and fighting going on at airports… and the media fuels it.
jusayinlike
Good man clampers, great work
Listrade
The ban is indefinite for Syrian refugees which was what he promised. Indefinite tends to mean permanent, or so the last “indefinite” break in a relationship I had turned out to be.
I’m happy to debate with you clampers, even if we clash and do pointy finger chest beating. But you can’t just throw in stats without context or without a position behind them.
Even now I don’t know where you stand. OTT? that’s a but weak isn’t it? Are you that afraid to criticise Trump? Is it just the left who are supposed to switch and be positive?
It’s not a sledgehammer to crack a nut because there is no nut. It is a means to ban Muslims and to specifically ban Syrian refugees, just as he promised.
Those stats don’t justify that, they justify greater screening…which was in place and was already thorough.
Stop attributing malice to crack handedness or OTT, he said he would do this. Several times.
There is plenty of hypocrisy on the left, the actual or the left you believe exists. But your high horse of exposing their hypocrisy crumbles like one of my metaphors when you do exactly what you accuse them of doing.
Be the man you claim to be and stop dancing around this one. It stinks. It is a policy of malice not based on anything other than race or religion. He told us he was going to do this Clampers! You can’t put lipstick on this pig.
I hear ya.
I’ll get back to you on the ‘left’ bit… Dave Rubin summed it up well a few days (weeks?) back… on phone now so can’t get at it… will do after I get out of where I’m goin’
ahjayzis
Should the Express not re-brand into “Xenophobia, Diabetes and Dementia Daily”?
“we’re going to start winning on every level. I say it kiddingly, but I mean it 100 percent: We’re going to win, win, win! We’re going to win so much, you’re going to get sick and tired of it. You’re going to say “Mr. President, we can’t take it anymore, we’re winning too much! Please, we don’t want to win that much anymore, we can’t take it, Mr. President!” And I’m not going to care — we’re going to keep winning! Because we’re going to make America great again.”
Well that’s fair enough then. Fairly emphatic.
So, nothing on The Irish Times about that paper’s disgraceful treatment of a female employee (sub editor) who was a new mother which was on the front page of The Sunday Times. Instead we have Irish Times female journalists complaining about Trump et al. How hypocritical is that?
Just caught the tail end of Una Mullally’s “I’m Irish” thing on RTE – Jesus! And you wonder about the IT editorial? Clearly, Ireland isn’t ready for women – you know, like – half the population (roughly)?
Jeez, how many identities have you got?
Nothing new there.
Female white privilege.
I’m not sure if you’re being sympathetic, or sarcastic – but, I’m pretty sure there’s no such thing as female white privilege..
Haha, oh……. yes there is. In spades.
LOL
Learn something… http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/21/income-achievement-gap-al_n_1105783.html
Not sure how that proves anything clamps, other than the fact that there is a huge wealth gap in the US. That it predominantly seems to affect minorities or black communities, and that this is limiting how far they can go in life, when compared with a white family seems like the established status quo over there. What has that to do with women?
See the comment below it, put the two together… you’ll get a ‘bingo’ line and win a prize. That prize being… she is a white privileged woman. Shayna is a modern-feminist, if past commenting can be a measure to go by, and so she knows this.
Also… “intersectionality” …more chuckles
Irish politicians losing their minds over Trumps immigration order. An attack on human rights I hear them say.. The latest official figures show that 7,148 people (including over 2,500 children) are homeless in Ireland which represents a massive 91% hike on the figures seen two years ago. What about their Human Rights? The filth in Leinster House are in no position to be lecturing other Heads of State about Human Rights when Irish citizens are literally dying on our streets. #politicalscum
Hey – I’m not Una – I assure you!
Not you – the “susan”.
Sorry, clearly I think everything’s about me?
Who is Susan?
Are you Desperately Seeking her?
Always possible.
As an Irish type – Trump’s immigration policy, which he’s drawn under “Executive Order” (The President does as he pleases), it doesn’t bode well. I’ve got family in the U.S – sure, for real – Irish. Going back generations, everyone (who reads this site) has some sort of affinity to the U.S?
Trump starts with 7/8 countries – I’m of an age that still remembers!
Idiots call for Kenny not to go.
Bet non of them work in the 1000s of American companies here.
Ah to the cheat Farah….boo hooo. Become an American citizen then. You live there don’t you?
Not saying it’s right by the way, but all the moaning is getting tiresome when there are obvious solutions.
what are your obvious solutions, do tell?
Mo can get his drugs sent to him in a jiffy bag, couriered by someone from British Cycling.
:-)
You want me to go through every problem that currently exists, no just that clown Farahs and give my solution? You can go fornicate yourself with a rusty iron bar. So you can.
…bet I can guess your final solution…
is that reply for me?
what’s the problem telling me about these great obvious solutions then…please expand on that because personally I’m lost, thanks.
or is it double maths now and you’ve had to put your phone away?
I’ve identified you as someone not worth replying to after this notification.
” Become an American citizen then. You live there don’t you?”
Ummm, green card holders are affected too. It isn’t just refugees and new immigrants it is a travel ban on all those from those countries irrespective of US status.
No it’s not.
American citizens with dual nationality are unaffected (although someone, priebus i think, said that would be looked at later). Legal aliens (green card holders) were initially affected but they rolled back on that over the weekend.
My mistake on American Citizens. However, the only climb down on green cards is that they will be considered on a case by case basis. That isn’t a total roll back.
So…he’s not an American citizen.
He runs for the United Kingdom and states this is his nationality.
But isn’t from there and doesn’t live there.
He’s Somali.
Hmmm…talk about complicating matters for yourself.
And now he’s complaining he can’t get into the US because people from his country of birth and childhood are temporarily banned?
Must be very tough for him having the democratically elected president of a country he’s not from [i]temporary[/i] cause this hiccup in his plans to live where he feels like it and claim what he wants.
Take some more drugs Farah, it’ll ease the pain.
He is training in the US as do many European sports people because of the facilities in the US. This is done under a visa. He moved to the UK aged 8. His Dad was born in London and a British citizen, his grandad had british citizenship. He was born in Somali. What exactly is complicated about that?
He is actually training in Ethiopia at the moment.
I don’t need a history lesson.
It’s pretty obvious.
If you have money OR you can run or jump you’re welcome.
Otherwise get the boat.
You imagine the CEO of an American company would … what? Shut up a profitable office in a tax haven, just because temporarily in power politicians have a spat?
Has that _ever_ happened here?
Protest is fun.. init… look… punch this guy, he thinks differently… go on the chaotic left lunatics…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RdsLjNnXT9Q&sns=tw
For the sake of completion. How many attended protests and how many people were punched?
I don’t know.
This video proves nothing. Who punched who, why, etc. is not clear.
What has happened to you Clampers? Genuinely
Obama’s administration sold weapons to Saudi Arabia for the war on Yemen, slaughtering thousands of Yemeni women and children…… but the left sat silent… no outrage, no mass protests.
Trump puts a ban on entry to the US, inhibiting some people’s rights to free movement (with via, if normally required) and the left goes ballistic.
I really do have a strong hate for either scenario but this latest “politicisation” for want of a better word, of this is revolting.
– – – – – further reading….
It’s not a Mulsim ban… as these countries with the most Muslims are not on the list…
Indonesia 205m
Pakistan 178m
India 172m
Banladesh 145m
Nigeria 74m
Some other trivia for the selectively outraged….
– Obama used the same laws Trump is now using six times to ban people from mostly Muslim countries… silence – http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/obama-mocks-trump-but-has-barred-immigrants-many-muslim-6-times/article/2594016
Charles Shumer who can be found cryin’ on TV over the temporary travel ban supported bombing of Lybia … which lead to deaths (not a ban) of thousands of Muslims including women and children
Canada’s recent extended welcome to those affected by US travel ban…. excludes single males… ask yourself why?
A decent piece from The Guardian on the travel ban… https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/28/trump-immigration-ban-syria-muslims-reaction-lawsuits
Australian Herald Sun does a take on the left hypocrisy too… http://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/andrew-bolt/muslim-ban-hypocrisy-left-said-nothing-when-obama-also-halted-visas/news-story/17c901096824ecd0a2e3a4d1e5ded377
A very good comparison, from the plethora of bullpoo out there, on the similarities / differences between Obama’s ban and Trump’s… http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-trump-refugee-policy-fact-check-2011-20170129-story.html
‘– Obama used the same laws Trump is now using six times to ban people from mostly Muslim countries… ‘
Funny thing. Obama enacted those bans in consultation with Congress, in compliance with the relevant laws and as a response to actionable intelligence. Contrast Trump’s overbroad, extremist, draconian diktat which caused widespread confusion and chaos, sparked global protest, is damaging international relations, and has ignited a constitutional crisis. Every time the ‘Obama did it too’ thing is raised, Obama comes off better in the comparison – measured, competent, decisive, responsible, limited and legally compliant. He looks like a statesman, and by extension, so does Clinton. Well done.You’re enhancing their legacy. Polishing them, as it were. Golf clap.
It’s not actually hypocrisy if you’re making up the motivations of the people you’re accusing out of, well, bullpoo.
‘It’s not a Mulsim ban…’
He campaigned on a platform of banning Muslims. Benefit of the doubt here is bullpoo.
Oh, wait, good job framing the narrative – Obama didn’t ‘ban’ anyone.
Ok Clampers:
Giuliani seems to think it was a Muslim Ban:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/01/29/trump-asked-for-a-muslim-ban-giuliani-says-and-ordered-a-commission-to-do-it-legally/?utm_term=.0bbdb8bd5739
The consequences of the ban also only affects Muslims i.e. statement that Christians and other minority religions will be fasttracked. Ergo only Muslims.
You state at the start Obama did the same thing and then post links to articles that show he didn’t do the same thing. Do you read the links you post or do you deliberately misrepresent them?
First. There was a lot of anger at what Obama did. I remember it. I remember having my own concerns too. I remember expressing those concerns. I even posted a link yesterday that shows there was an adverse reaction. As there was to a lot of Obama’s policies that the “left” disagreed with.
Second, Obama didn’t ban anyone. The order halted visa applications while they conducted extra checks on those individuals. At the specific request of intelligence, they asked for additional time while they processed finger prints on IEDs to check against those granted visas. The order halted gave more time to those currently undergoing visa assessment.
Third, it wasn’t a sweeping ban, those who had already been approved could still travel, green card holders could still travel.
Its not even remotely comparable apart from the fact that it involved Iraq and visas.
There were no protests because there didn’t need to be. You didn’t have doctors and professors who had green cards deported back to Iran. You didn’t have hundreds of people who had already had visas approved suddenly turned away. You didn’t have all this going on without any right to or access to legal representation. Under Obama’s order, your application was delayed, under Trump, your approved visa was revoked.
Then the courts halted the order and there was a direct order from the White House to ignore the order and border control management continued to breach a court order.
Pick your battles Clampers and don’t deliberately mislead and misrepresent your spurious argument. You wanted the “left” to give Trump credit for TTP, but continue to defend…sorry offer “alternative” perspective wrapped up in a sweeping dig at the left on anything negative he has done. There is nothing about this order that can be dressed up as positive or excused based on any previous president. Nothing. Your effort to keep polishing a turd to fit in with your own issues with the “left” is just leaving you with a great stinking turd in your hands and nothing else. Everything that the “left” worried about is happening right now and right in front of you. That can’t be dressed up or polished. It is what it is and you should be worried too.
Of course this order is OTT and stupid because of it’s sweeping approach. That’s what the last link was intended to show.
I even stated so…. “A very good comparison, from the plethora of bullpoo out there, on the similarities / differences between Obama’s ban and Trump’s…”
So it’s a tactical application issue in the difference… if you read it. And yes there was anger at Obama, so what, there’s anger here too. But it’s with the extent of the application. The application of the ban is different, the laws invoked are not. – that’s in the link. The one I stated where the differences can be viewed.
It’s not a Muslim ban as there are Muslim’s with visas getting through. It’s difficult, but they are getting in, and some are being detained or sent back. It’s badly applied.
And the claims it’s down to Trump’s business interests which is still being bandied about as a reason is also bull.
I’m not polishing a turd, Obama is the turd that’s been polished already by the left, thanks. Trump’s a muppet, always was.
And yes, Even Bernie Sanders gave Trump a hattip, and I will too on the TTP/TTIP.
And Trump’s ban is temporary as per the.. Act… can’t recall the number of it. The same one Obama used.
You want me to have said sh** I never said… suck an egg Listrade. The “left” is demented. And yes, I do have issue with that, absolutely… it’s gone full-retard (sorry Nigel) and I don’t bloody like it. If the hard-right is to be stopped, it won’t be through bullsh**, as eight years of Obama showed.
You give Trump hat tips. accuse the “left” (define please) of not giving a hat tip on one single issue (not all were against TTP for starters), you say you do so from a position of impartiality. But even in the face of egregiously poor and hate-filled policies, your response is “yeah but Obama” or “here’s what someone said on twitter”. That isn’t balance, that is defending Trump. That is polishing a turd because you’ve made a bogeyman out of the whole left and either just want to be contrarian or genuinely have consciously sided with the right in order to make a point.
Yeah but, nothing. Explain why even mention Obama? Why mention the Obama ban? “it was made under the same law”, so what? What exactly is the link? This is a line used by Trump yesterday and his fascist supporters. As you point out it came based on different circumstances and specific. And was also met with anger. Obama’s policy on refugees? Also met with anger. His failure to live up to those promises? Also met with anger. The “left” weren’t, as you suggest weren’t as overwhelmingly happy with Obama during his time as you make out.
“Not a Muslim Ban” see Giuliani’s comments on how it was developed. It was a Muslim ban, but you can’t just do a Muslim ban so they had to retrofit it to something to be in effect a Muslim ban. Criminalisation of drugs wasn’t racist because it was broad and sweeping. The intention was racist though and overtly so.
It is what it is. Trump wanted to ban Muslims, he stood there and told us he would. But Wah! What about Hillary’s emails? Wah! Pizzagate! Obviously you can’t actually just ban Muslims so you put out something that is broad and sweeping, but in effect the only ones affected are Muslims. The motivation for it was to ban Muslims. It bans Muslims. QED.
But don’t give up hope, turns out you actually can polish a turd.
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yiJ9fy1qSFI&w=854&h=480%5D
“Partaking in useless garbage fills you with determination.”
I’ll look into the Guiliani comments…
I’m not getting into the rest… be here all day, and it’s largely opined already…
That’s because you have been well and truly bum fupped here clap out?
Hi Neil… didn’t realise you read all the news. And you know all the words. And used all the crayons.
Go away.
‘And the claims it’s down to Trump’s business interests which is still being bandied about as a reason is also bull.’
I love how imprecise the argument you’re supposed to be refuting is. Trump’s ban conspicuously avoided covering countries he has business dealings with. Why would anyone with a brain not have a problem with that?
Stop Nigel, go away with that argument, it’s clearly based on the Obama list.
Supposedly based on that list, but so what? It’s a glaring conflict of interest.
‘So it’s a tactical application issue in the difference… if you read it. And yes there was anger at Obama, so what, there’s anger here too. But it’s with the extent of the application. The application of the ban is different, the laws invoked are not. – that’s in the link. The one I stated where the differences can be viewed.’
This is such a stumbling effort to find equivalence between Obama’s measures and Trump’s. Obama managed to invoke the laws without setting everyhting on fire, Trump turned the whole thing into a dangerous clown catastrophe – otherwise totally the same.
‘And yes there was anger at Obama, so what, there’s anger here too.’
The entire basis for your hand-waving is that there wasn’t anger at the stuff Obama did. That’s so what.
Jebus… you continually say I said things I didn’t.
Go away with that p** Nigel.
Quoting your very words is saying you said things you didn’t? Here, let me round it off with this, also you:
‘– Obama used the same laws Trump is now using six times to ban people from mostly Muslim countries… silence’
How have I said you say thing you didn’t say?
it’s gone full-retard (sorry Nigel)’
Scummy.
‘and I don’t bloody like it. If the hard-right is to be stopped, it won’t be through bullsh**, as eight years of Obama showed.’
I admire your commitment to opposing the hard right. When will you start?
Saying one thing means something completely different on another tangent on planet Nigel.
Oh …just stop already.
What ‘one thing means something completely different’ here? You’re being very unclear. ‘If the hard right is to be stopped’ doesn’t reflect any sort of wish, desire or effort on your part for the hard-right to be stopped? Or you just want me to stop, and Trump’s critics to stop?
X is a terrible human being, to be clear.
And now to be balanced here’s twelve paragraphs on why the opposition to X is awful, malevolent, wicked, tricksy and probably paedophiles.
But X is definitely bad. Just not as bad as everything else.
Some people just like arguing for the sake of it. Digging a deeper and deeper hole …
From this list… which ones are failed states and most likely to deliver dodgy characters…. it looks like the list Trump used is of those that are failed, or as good as failed states (let’s not get started, on who caused them to fail)
https://infographic.statista.com/normal/chartoftheday_4227_support_for_isis_in_muslim_countries_n.jpg
Probably a better list:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Sponsors_of_Terrorism
Iran added 1984 (Thanks Obama)
Sudan added 1993 (Thanks Obama)
Syria added 1979 (Thanks Obama)
3 of the 7 where intelligence reports link the State is sponsoring terrorism.
Of the list you supplied, what it is actually stating is:
79% of Syrians DO NOT support Isis.
95% of Iraqis DO NOT support Isis
93% Yemenis DO NOT support Isis
93% of Libyans DO NOT support Isis.
Just look at crime stats on almost anything. 5 to 6% is a lot.
21% is through the bloody roof.
I’m surprised Tunisia was so high myself.
Not crime stats though, they are “thought” stats as in “feel positively about Isis.” Massive difference. You cannot base policy on “thought”.
To put it into perspective with similar “thought” stats, 50% of Americans disapprove of Trump. If 21% “positive feelings about Isis” is through the bloody roof, then 50% just overtook Voyager.
http://www.abdn.ac.uk/staffpages/uploads/soc207/polviolence.pdf
Check out chart on p607 regarding those having a lot of sympathy / empathy for NI paramilitaries.
I’m not trying to say the two attitudes, one towards NI paramilitaries of either side, and those with positive attitudes to ISIS, are mirrors but it is very much note worthy, I do believe.
My only point is that any positive leaning is fuel for the violent group in question.
[ If you believe use of this study is completely wrong in this instance, please do let me know why you might think so. And if you convince me, I’ll drop it, but at present I do think it note worthy ]
I don’t know what point your trying to make with the study to say if it is wrong or not. Is it to justify the ban? Not sure because you post without context.
Of course attitudes to ISIS are an issue, that is why there are thorough checks on anyone applying for a visa.
Do you support or agree with the ban and/or are you saying someone’s personal thouhhts is sufficient to justify banning all citizens from a country?
The reports are valid, but only for screening, not banning. The banning isn’t even consitent with that chart.
” I don’t know what point your trying to make with the study to say if it is wrong or not. Is it to justify the ban? Not sure because you post without context. ”
I’m putting it in here, as note worthy, but by no means direct comparison to show how sympathy / positive attitude toward violent groups lends that group support. And that only small percentage of support can mean a lot.
” Do you support or agree with the ban and/or are you saying someone’s personal thouhhts is sufficient to justify banning all citizens from a country? ” The ban is like using a sledge hammer when a panel beater was required… and is doing damage.
” The reports are valid, but only for screening, not banning. The banning isn’t even consistent with that chart. ” Again, the sledgehammer… but, the ‘ban’ is temporary and not permanent, which is a small sliver of silver… in a mess of a situation.
I think the whole ‘ban’ was cart before the horse stuff. They should have announced ‘tighter controls’ on new visas coming… with temp bans for those who don’t pass a first round of security inspection. Full ban if don’t pass further security.
Again, I think the whole ‘ban’ was cart before the horse stuff. And just the word ‘ban’ sent many reeling as if it were a permanent ban which I believe helped create the hysteria. It’s been handled cack handedly.
” Of course attitudes to ISIS are an issue, that is why there are thorough checks on anyone applying for a visa. ” …and the orange one said he’d get tougher on those, so he did… but as i said, he’s clearly done so, so very badly, with the worst diplomacy ever.
I throw in the Obama stuff to show that the outrage over trump’s cack handedness is, in my belief, OTT…. especially trashing and protesting and fighting going on at airports… and the media fuels it.
Good man clampers, great work
The ban is indefinite for Syrian refugees which was what he promised. Indefinite tends to mean permanent, or so the last “indefinite” break in a relationship I had turned out to be.
I’m happy to debate with you clampers, even if we clash and do pointy finger chest beating. But you can’t just throw in stats without context or without a position behind them.
Even now I don’t know where you stand. OTT? that’s a but weak isn’t it? Are you that afraid to criticise Trump? Is it just the left who are supposed to switch and be positive?
It’s not a sledgehammer to crack a nut because there is no nut. It is a means to ban Muslims and to specifically ban Syrian refugees, just as he promised.
Those stats don’t justify that, they justify greater screening…which was in place and was already thorough.
Stop attributing malice to crack handedness or OTT, he said he would do this. Several times.
There is plenty of hypocrisy on the left, the actual or the left you believe exists. But your high horse of exposing their hypocrisy crumbles like one of my metaphors when you do exactly what you accuse them of doing.
Be the man you claim to be and stop dancing around this one. It stinks. It is a policy of malice not based on anything other than race or religion. He told us he was going to do this Clampers! You can’t put lipstick on this pig.
I hear ya.
I’ll get back to you on the ‘left’ bit… Dave Rubin summed it up well a few days (weeks?) back… on phone now so can’t get at it… will do after I get out of where I’m goin’
Should the Express not re-brand into “Xenophobia, Diabetes and Dementia Daily”?
needs more Princess Diana and cancer to be legit
No room for ‘our Maddie’?
For shame.