Schh, he needs to reach his daily quota of accusing liberals of double standards wrt Obama. It's one of those apple-a-day things
Printable View
Schh, he needs to reach his daily quota of accusing liberals of double standards wrt Obama. It's one of those apple-a-day things
I'm actually not entirely in agreement, OG. The DHS reports to POTUS, and it's not unlikely that for such a politically sensitive move, Obama would at least have been aware about the composition of the 'country of concern' list or whatever. I agree that the results of this list were not used to ban people from entering the country (certainly not visa holders!) but it's a little disingenuous to completely divorce the Obama administration from responsibility for the precise makeup of the list.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
There are similarly some nuances wrt the claim circulating on the right about Obama's freeze on entry of Iraqi nationals back in 2011. I think it's really important that in our haste to denounce Trumps (vile, unwise, perhaps unconstitutional) actions we should not forget to leaven our criticisms with a healthy dose of reality.
Actually OG Khen has already falsely accused me of suggesting that Obama banned people from those nations (as far as I know he only banned Iraqi visa applicants for six months specifically). But then I never said that. As I said to Khen either show where I said that or apologise at your leisure. He's chosen to do neither so far I'm curious which you will go for.
These nations are the nations Obama had as countries of concern. Trump is using the list for dramatically different purposes but it is the same list of countries.
Your claim is still wrong and your source is crap. Congress did not pass a list of 7 "countries of concern." Again, as was already explained to you, the act congress passed and obama signed had 2 countries specifically mentioned. The maintenance of the list after that point fell on the department of homeland security.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBladeHe's chosen to do neither so far I'm curious which you will go for.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
I don't see a reason to apologize when you're distributing fake news, Rand.
Which reported to Obama. Congress and Obama authorised that list (while authorising the DHS which reported to Obama to maintain it) and Trump is using the list that Congress has authorised for his own purposes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
There's nothing fake other than your straw man.Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
And? This is about the same level of logic as:Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Cop A: "These characters on this list might be a bit suspicious. Keep an eye on them!"
Cop B: "Now that Cop A is in retirement I'm issuing a Shoot-On-Sight-order for anyone on that list!"
And somehow now it's all Cop A's fault.
Who said it is all Obama's fault?
You did. By actually posting this stupid link and calling it interesting. Because exactly that narrative is used once again by the alt-right to vindicate Trump.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
It does not matter in the slightest where your stupid list came from. In fact, given Trump's idiocy, it only figures that he isn't even capable of creating a list of his own.
You may now commence whining about how this is all a big misunderstanding.
It's not a misunderstanding it's you being an ignorant shit head making crap up. I never said it's Obama's fault and you've tacitly admitted as such by claiming the word interesting is the same as saying everything is Obama's fault which it clearly isn't.
Randblade apparently believes people on this board don't know what insinuation and innuendo look like.
"Of course I'm not saying Jeff was stealing from the office, but it's interesting he went home early that day, don't you think?"
Come on, man, we're not 11 years old.
While this is getting better, and no where near the same as your original claim... I don't think you could have written this in a more managerial style :haha: Leave it to your type to create a transitive property of taking credit for shit.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
https://twitter.com/katherinemiller/...72519216451584
Interesting report about the role of Sessions (if true).
So whats worse, the guy who considers leading as a war against the populace, or the guy who incorrectly thinks the country loves him and is doing it for the ratings?
At this point I honestly don't think he does it on purpose. It's become second nature.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
On another forum, a bunch of guys jumped very readily to the defense of Trump with the "But Obama!" list, cannot see anything wrong with Bannon and basically think that a three month ban isn't a problem at all. Don't care about international repercussions, and are completely and willfully ignorant of the plight of refugees. One of them said: "But we found that some have active tuberculosis!" As if that was a reason not to let them into a country where they could get proper help.
The views of those guys are pretty frightening because they display the same kind of idiocy our own Neonazis regularly display. Not to mention that their usual invocations of Christianity makes me nauseous.
I can only hope that this doesn't end with a smoking, irradiated crater some-/everywhere
Bullshit. The reason the list of nations is relevant is as Aimless rightly pointed out yesterday because of the glaring omissions on the list. A smartly designed list to prevent terrorism attacks like Trump has claimed would not look like this:Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
http://www.iaindale.com/uploads/phot...e_uskilled.png
Of course if we included European deaths in the list the image would be different.
One hope I would have had with Trump's hysteria over Muslims is that he could stop the long-standing American pandering of the House of Saud who well deserve a position in the "axis of evil" but are treated as allies not enemies. So far though they still seem to be avoiding any form of sanction.
Randblade. The Obama Administration list targets people who have travelled to those countries within those past few years (since March 2011). The Trump EO outright bans anyone who has citizenship with one of those countries, even if they left when they were 8 or something.
It makes a certain amount of sense to take a closer look have people who have recently travelled to a war zone where terrorist groups are highly active. It makes none to simply bar outright on the basis of citizenship, at least not if you motive is security rather than racism.
I want you know that your attempts to obfuscate and normalize what the Trump administration is up, and redirect the blame onto democrats are incredibly transparent and you should give them up immediately.
I never said that Trump's actions were the same, equivalent or justified though did I. In fact I couldn't have been clearer that I oppose what Trump is doing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
The only time I have referenced Obama's list is in relation to the nations that are on it not the actions that Obama and Trump have taken.
You linked to an article whose headline was, quote, "Obama’s administration made the “Muslim ban” possible and the media won’t tell you" with the line "this is interesting" as if this cast the events of the past few days in an entirely different light.
http://54.144.231.100/wp-content/upl...k-Adorable.jpg
You do know that we can see you, right?
It was interesting. Certainly has sparked a lot of side discussion here.
I never wrote the clickbait headline or said I agree with all of it but it was interesting.
Most of it without merit.
Agreed there's been a lot of posts without merit.
The main reason why it may be appropriate to cast this as being a "Muslim ban" is the apparent intention to make exceptions for non-Muslims from those countries. The list does not include most Muslim countries.
"I just want to start a discussion" is up there with "playing devil's advocate" and "just asking questions, that's all", competing for the title of 'most weasely justification for pushing a bullshit agenda you having the guts to admit to openly' (2017)
'I'm not saying wi-fi causes cancer, but take a look at this random blog post saying it does. it's pretty interesting'
http://i1.mirror.co.uk/incoming/arti...e-and-seek.jpg
It doesn't include anywhere near most Muslims. It doesn't even include the whole Middle East let alone Muslim nations like Indonesia.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
What I'm saying is that the thing that makes this look like a "Muslim ban" are the things that also distinguish it from the Obama-era measures, notably the stated desire to make a religious exception and of course implementing an actual BAN.
The fact that this is a ban makes this a ban, no questions asked. Its a completely messed up, insane and unjustifiable ban that doesn't make any sense on any grounds.
It's not a ban on Muslims - most of the world's Muslims can still travel unimpeded by this.
It's not a ban on terrorists - they could be from other nations or these but there's no intelligence here.
It's not a ban on those affected by recent wars - it affects Green Card holders and dual nationals like Olympian Sir Mo Farah.
It's a lashing out on people based on rather arbitrary nations chosen for a list originally made for an entirely different purpose.
Looks like some of the insaner parts of the ban are already being scratched out.
Those with green cards still allowed to use them.
Dual citizens (like Sir Mo Farrah whom I mentioned yesterday) are to be allowed to travel using their passport from the nations not affected.
Yes, however I was not aware that the government can stop your attorney from reaching you while you're being held. Nor was I aware that govt. officers can wilfully and arbitrarily ignore court orders, which was how several incidents were being described at the time. If the CBP officers were following directions from DHS when they disobeyed the court orders, as may have been the case, that's another matter. Stories like this make me think the world is an even shittier place than I originally thought.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
source? cause the whitehouse's anonymous media briefing used the alternative definition of "exemption" to explain the green card problems. Seriously, their senior officials had a "semantic debate" about what exemption meant as they attacked the "hyperventilating" media (So everyone assumes it was Spicer and Bannon giving the briefing). It was specifically stated that nothing has changed concerning green card holders.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Green card holders still have to apply for a waiver in order to have the green card recognized and usable. So they are still being caught up in this mess.
Saw it on TV.
I had the news on in the background and a spokesman for the Department of Homeland Security was giving a press conference and stated that there were no restrictions on Green Card holders and that all Green Card holders who had been detained had now been released. He also stated that dual nationals would be free to travel so long as they use the passport that is NOT one of the seven restricted ones to travel with. Yesterday US embassies were warning dual nationals not to travel.
So nothing's changed for green card holders cause that's the same line they used in the briefing. Green card holders are exempt, after they jumped through extra hoops, like applying for waivers. The green card holders that were caught were released, 170 of them, because their waivers were processed and saying that no one was still being held makes a great soundbyte when you have protestors mobbing your airports and even the taxi drivers are striking over it.
If Green Card holders know that they need to file paperwork then they can do that going forward so nobody need get caught up and detained again.
That's generally why when you make changes like this you give a period for people to adjust rather than announce it effective immediately even for people who are travelling what was legally when their flight departed :rolleyes:
Nor did they. Aimless, those people were not YET represented by counsel. The lawyers were there so they could sign 'em up to be represented, not because they already were. I will note as well, that "illegal immigrants" do NOT have an absolute right to counsel. Things like deportation are considered administrative, not criminal, and the due process requirements are not the same.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Even if they weren't, the response to not obeying a court order is "contempt of court," which as I've struggled to explain in the past is not punishment. And also not appropriate in that confused situation. If the situation remained completely unchanged after the weekend maybe but. . .Quote:
Nor was I aware that govt. officers can wilfully and arbitrarily ignore court orders, which was how several incidents were being described at the time. If the CBP officers were following directions from DHS when they disobeyed the court orders, as may have been the case, that's another matter.
Now THAT, if true, is punishable and should be punished. That's fraud and malfeasance, actual statutory violations.Quote:
http://time.com/4656182/trump-muslim...d-immigration/
Green-Card Holder Dies a Day After Being Prevented From Returning Home by Trump's Order, Report Says
Its not so much that this woman died, its that she has lived in the US since 1995. Shes been here longer than Trumps current wife. Getting a green card is both costly and extensive. This goes beyond being simply evil for Trump to ignore the processes we already have in place to vet people.
Conservative America explodes due to the Starbucks CEO's announcement that SB will commit to hiring 10,000 refugees worldwide. This is outrageous! They should be forced to hire 10,000 veterans instead!
When informed of the fact that SB has already committed to hiring 10,000 vets, the response is a combination of disbelief ("no they haven't!"), mockery ("ha ha they're 3-4 years in and still have 12% to go before they can reach their 5 year goal!"), dissatisfaction ("it's not enough!") and of course hatred ("refugees should never get any jobs! They'd probably turn up their nose at these jobs anyway so that they can live large on benefits! No refugee should ever be employed so long as there is a single unemployed veteran out there! Vets don't want to work at liberal Poobucks anyway!!")
This is a growing and increasingly influential subset of the American electorate, lovingly nurtured for years by both the Republican establishment and by people like Lewk, gladly tolerated by complacent "principled" college-educated Republicans and now turned loose upon the civilized world by lulz-seeking nihilists. Varsågod, as we say in Sweden--enjoy the fruits of your political labor. May you live long enough to choke on them :downcast:
The number of times in the past 24 hours I've explained on facebook that Starbucks has been pushing a veterans hiring initiative since 2015, and that this new initiative is focusing on the refugees that helped US armed forces overseas (that we have systematically been abandoning for years now).Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
I usually get ignored, sometimes I'll get a like, I think 2 have deleted the post. no one has responded.
Facebook announced they were rolling out their new algorithm to limit the spread of false or sensational news today. Tagged every motherfucker on my list that shared the boycott starbucks bullshit.