Hail To The Chief (Read Mod Warning In OP)

RobertKK

Leroy42 wrote: »

Robert, you can't really think that this is anything other than a muslim based ban?

He said he would ban muslims during the campaign, he is doing it now but somehow this is different?

Most people in the US, hell in Europe as well I would wager, conflate muslim with the Middle East. THey don't think of Indonesia etc.

Whilst is is not directly a muslim ban, that is more down to ignorance that actuality.

If it is not based on religion, then what? The terrorism position doesn't stack up to the facts. If Trump is so worried about deaths of US citizens then gun control would be top of the list.

The fact that he then came out and said that despite the ban they would continue to accept christians from the same countries just goes to prove it.

Have you ever filled out an ESTA form?

orubiru

Leroy42 wrote: »

Most people in the US, hell in Europe as well I would wager, conflate muslim with the Middle East. THey don't think of Indonesia etc.

Whilst is is not directly a muslim ban, that is more down to ignorance that actuality.

Yeah, it may just be down to ignorance. Like they have just gone with Muslim = Middle East and haven't actually bothered to think about it.

People often say that the President has no real power and it's his advisers that make all the big decisions but you would think someone here would be able to step in and point of the stupidity of banning people on the basis of their nationality being an indicator of their religion?

RobertKK

Billy86 wrote: »

No opinion on why it didn't include Pakistan and the Saudis so?

No, no opinion, just posted it many times, and I am not a parrot.

osarusan

Some snippets from an excellent article from Glenn Greenwald about it:

The sole ostensible rationale for this ban — it is necessary to keep out Muslim extremists — collapses upon the most minimal scrutiny. The countries that have produced and supported the greatest number of anti-U.S. terrorists — Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Qatar, UAE — are excluded from the ban list because the tyrannical regimes that run those countries are close U.S. allies. Conversely, the countries that are included — Syria, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Iran, Sudan, and Yemen — have produced virtually no such terrorists; as the Cato Institute documented on Friday night: “Foreigners from those seven nations have killed zero Americans in terrorist attacks on U.S. soil between 1975 and the end of 2015.” Indeed, as of a 2015 study by the New America research center, deaths caused by terrorism from right-wing nationalists since 9/11 have significantly exceeded those from Muslim extremists.

Trump’s pledge last night to a Christian broadcasting network to prioritize Christian refugees over all others is just profane: The very idea of determining who merits refuge on the basis of religious belief is bigotry in its purest sense. Beyond the morality, it is almost also certainly unconstitutional in a country predicated on the “free exercise of religion.” In the New York Times this morning, Cato analyst David Bier also convincingly argues that the policy is illegal on statutory grounds as well.

Making this worse still is the central role the U.S. government played in the horrors from which many of these now-banned people are fleeing. The suggestion that Trump protected the countries with which he does business is preposterous. The reality is that his highly selective list reflects longstanding U.S. policy: Indeed, Obama restricted visa rights for these same seven countries, and the regimes in Riyadh and Cairo have received special U.S. protection for decades, long before Trump.

https://theintercept.com/2017/01/28/trumps-muslim-ban-is-culmination-of-war-on-terror-mentality-but-still-uniquely-shameful/

VinLieger

RobertKK wrote: »

No, no opinion, just posted it many times, and I am not a parrot.

Now thats just not true, how many times have you pushed that same Obama did it first argument in this thread and the preceding ones?:D:D:D

Professor Moriarty

orubiru wrote: »

There are more than 10 predominantly Muslim nations though, right?

OK, so maybe this is looking like I am saying "it's not a Muslim ban" but that is not what I am driving at here. It is a Muslim ban if you want to call it that but more specifically it is a ban on 7 seemingly arbitrary nations.

There are loads and loads of Muslim nations so what I asking is why they selected those 7 in particular. Why not a list of 12 or 15 or 20?

Aren't Morocco, Tunisia and Algeria Muslim nations?

Have they basically just chosen the ones with the highest Muslim population?

Forget whether it's right or wrong. I think it's wrong and to be honest you are wasting your time debating with anyone who thinks it's right.

Why choose those 7 specifically for "special" treatment? You don't think that is bizarre?

He is expanding (greatly) on restrictions already in place on those seven countries. Those restrictions were put in place by Obama and were designated countries of concern.

The problem is that what he is doing is way beyond anything envisaged by the previous administration and is most probably illegal. Also, and this is the crucial point, under his own criteria for exclusion he should also have placed many more countries such as SA, the UAE, Egypt under the same restrictions as the seven. He's being both discriminatory and hypocritical.

Billy86

RobertKK wrote: »

No, no opinion, just posted it many times, and I am not a parrot.

Well at least you admit Trump is giving preferential treatment to, and has many personal business ties to, an extremist death cult have incompatible ways of life with the US who are heavily suspected for being behind the 9/11.

It's interesting though, that those were among the main reasons you wanted him in office over the other crowd. As said many times before, you've been sold a con.

RobertKK

VinLieger wrote: »

Now thats just not true, how many times have you pushed that same Obama did it first argument in this thread and the preceding ones?:D:D:D

I have posted about Saudi Arabia and Pakistan a few times on why I believe they are not on the list.
Then I get told "No opinion on why it didn't include Pakistan and the Saudis so?"

Specsavers come to mind.

orubiru

osarusan wrote: »

Some snippets from an excellent article from Glenn Greenwald about it:

https://theintercept.com/2017/01/28/trumps-muslim-ban-is-culmination-of-war-on-terror-mentality-but-still-uniquely-shameful/

It's kind of worrying how much power they actually have, and how unreasonable they are when wielding it.

When you think about it there has to have actually been a meeting where they've decided which countries can be banned and which countries cannot be banned and they have not, as far as I can tell, shown how they came up with the list of banned nations.

If this was a blanket ban I would still disagree strongly with it but at least there would be a kind of logic behind it.

This idea that they came up with a list that just happens to exclude certain nations makes no sense at all.

Does anyone know what kind of relationships Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Eqypt and UAE have with Syria, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Iran, Sudan, and Yemen?

RobertKK

Billy86 wrote: »

Well at least you admit Trump is giving preferential treatment to, and has many personal business ties to, an extremist death cult have incompatible ways of life with the US who are heavily suspected for being behind the 9/11.

It's interesting though, that those were among the main reasons you wanted him in office over the other crowd. As said many times before, you've been sold a con.

Did you happen to avoid noticing that the travel ban are on nations that are not called US allies?
The US even have a US preclearance in the UAE.
US have their biggest military base in Qatar with around 10,000 troops based there.
All these countries are allied to the Saudis.

The US know the Saudis could put their economy into a deep recession if they wanted to.
It is much bigger than Trump's business interests, only looking at it from that perspective is myopic.

I said I want less wars, given the alternative voted for every war going and criticised Obama over not getting more involved in Syria.

kunst nugget

orubiru wrote: »

When you think about it there has to have actually been a meeting where they've decided which countries can be banned and which countries cannot be banned and they have not, as far as I can tell, shown how they came up with the list of banned nations.

I'm guessing the criteria for the list was 'Poorest countries with a high majority of Muslims that don't buy arms from us'.

Christy42

RobertKK wrote: »

But it more than a Muslim ban.
Lazy journalists and people in the media who call it a Muslim ban are damaging to their profession, as this is just not true.

I would prefer to be denied entry at Dublin than after a long flight.

You left off Rudi from your list of Lazy people. He is not in the media.

What is it if not a Muslim ban? It sure as hell as jack all to do with terrorism. Maybe it is more to do with Trump's businesses than Muslims. Maybe it is a combination. One thing I can say is it has nothing to do with terrorism (or by someone who has no idea what is going on with terrorism).

orubiru

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

He is expanding (greatly) on restrictions already in place on those seven countries. Those restrictions were put in place by Obama and were designated countries of concern.

The problem is that what he is doing is way beyond anything envisaged by the previous administration and is most probably illegal. Also, and this is the crucial point, under his own criteria for exclusion he should also have placed many more countries such as SA, the UAE, Egypt under the same restrictions as the seven. He's being both discriminatory and hypocritical.

I'm not even sure if this is better or worse than I imagined.

He has basically just taken a list that Obama's people compiled (I assume Obama himself did not just come up with a random list) and decided to just turn restrictions into an outright ban?

Yes it is both discriminatory and hypocritical but at least I understand now where they got the list of 7 countries from.

Muir

orubiru wrote: »

Yeah, it may just be down to ignorance. Like they have just gone with Muslim = Middle East and haven't actually bothered to think about it.

People often say that the President has no real power and it's his advisers that make all the big decisions but you would think someone here would be able to step in and point of the stupidity of banning people on the basis of their nationality being an indicator of their religion?

It's not really about banning Muslims - it's about giving the impression that he is doing so. You have to first look at the people who elected him, many of them are scared of terrorist attacks and believe Muslims pose a threat. That fear may be irrational when you look at statistics but then people have irrational fears of many things (apparently Trump is afraid of slopes, for example). Trump got the support of these people because he told them he spoke about it and promised to take actions such as this ban - essentially he played on their fears to get himself elected.

So, now he has to look like he is doing what he said he would, so he imposes a ban. It's not really a ban on Muslims because he hasn't banned all Muslims. It's not actually about terrorism because he decided to ban people from countries that have not been responsible for any fatal terrorist attacks on US soil. However, it will appear to those supporters who are afraid that it is a ban that will stop Muslim terrorists entering the US - and that's all he needs to achieve. And no matter what happens now he will justify it, because no fatal terrorist attacks by people from these countries (even though there already aren't any) will mean his ban worked, and an increase in attacks means the fears are justified and he was right to ban them in the first place.

osarusan

orubiru wrote: »

I'm not even sure if this is better or worse than I imagined.

He has basically just taken a list that Obama's people compiled (I assume Obama himself did not just come up with a random list) and decided to just turn restrictions into an outright ban?

Yes it is both discriminatory and hypocritical but at least I understand now where they got the list of 7 countries from.

The Greenwald article would suggest that the ban applies to the the most war-torn/destabilised countries. I'm not informed enough to know if that's true or not. Afghanistan is one I can think of that is not on the list.

Perhaps it's just the countries viewed as most likely to be suffering a mass exodus in the future.

Billy86

RobertKK wrote: »

Did you happen to avoid noticing that the travel ban are on nations that are not called US allies?
The US even have a US preclearance in the UAE.
US have their biggest military base in Qatar with around 10,000 troops based there.
All these countries are allied to the Saudis.

The US know the Saudis could put their economy into a deep recession if they wanted to.
It is much bigger than Trump's business interests, only looking at it from that perspective is myopic.

And yet before this weekend your tune was so incredibly, laughably, different...

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=101727123&postcount=8838
It is surprising how many apologists there are for Saudi Arabia despite them being so incompatible with our way of life.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=101764838&postcount=8972
Maybe weapons sales which have and are being used to kill people in Yemen is a much lesser deal to you, and it is hotels that kill people.
Maybe Hillary Clinton and her Saudi policies toward Syria are what you want.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=101759882&postcount=8955
I don't have a problem with Ireland selling food to Saudi Arabia, people have to eat, unlike what the Saudi's are trying to do to Yemen which is starve them.
People who travel need hotels.
You only need weapons to kill people...which doubled what was sold when Clinton was secretary of state versus under the Bush administration...

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=101723137&postcount=8818
For some people a sale of distressed assets that are undertaken by a creditors about 25 years ago is equivalent to the Clintons taking in money from Saudi Arabia in the past 5 or 6 years, after 9/11 when they had been under constant suspicion of being behind 9/11.

Assad is the devil that is known, maybe people prefer the Saudi supported devils who are even far far worse and far far more intolerant.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=101714916&postcount=8785
It depends who you like more:

Trump and his 'Russian connections'.
or
Hillary and her direct links with the governments of Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

Russia blamed for hacking in the US, annexing Crimea and supporting Assad.
Saudi Arabia linked with the 9/11 atrocity and along with Qatar are accused of funding ISIS, along with the most backward practices towards women and gay people.

Hillary would have kept the policies that Saudi Arabia favoured - the removal of Assad.
Trump has to prove he is not a warmonger as he has stated such.

I hope Trump works with Assad and Russia to sort out that mess.
Assad had a secular government and minorities were safe, the people the west and Hillary supported in Syria seem to be nothing more than at the very least a moderate brand of terrorist who helped to destroy their country.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=101722516&postcount=8807
Now look at Syria and the countries backing some of the people against Assad, you have Saudi Arabia and Qatar, who export extremist values of their death cult. Anyone who has to fight these people have my support as they are fighting the most extremist ideology on the planet, two nation accused of funding the most extreme terrorist groups and the Saudis of being behind 9/11.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=101760011&postcount=8956
Personally I was more against Hillary than pro-Trump, but being anti-Clinton meant I did want Trump to win as I feel Trump is a less of a danger to the world than someone who wants to implement Saudi foreign policy in Syria.

And that's just off the first page of results from November!!




But hey, keep selling yourself that con, even if it means going against everything you supposedly stood for before Trump took office.

Grayson

We might have to remove preclearance from Ireland. Not because we want to but because it's in conflict with our laws.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2017/jan/29/donald-trump-us-travel-ban-refugees-airports

Seven human rights organisations have warned that the operation of the Trump ban at Ireland’s two major airports could violate both Irish and European human rights law, writes Henry McDonald in Dublin.

The groups who include Amnesty International Ireland, the Free Legal Advice Centres (FLAC) and the Irish Council of Civil Liberties have called today for an “urgent review” of how US Homeland Security operates at Dublin and Shannon airports.

Currently Homeland Security officials vet travellers from Ireland to the United States before they board transatlantic flights. Those sections of the two airports were Homeland Security check travellers passports and other personal information are effectively American territory.

osarusan

RobertKK wrote: »

The US know the Saudis could put their economy into a deep recession if they wanted to.

I am not at all sure that is true either:

Don't Believe The Hype, Saudi Arabia Actually Owns Less Than 1% Of U.S. Debt

To think Saudi Arabia holds some formidable power over U.S. markets is wildly inaccurate. In fact, Saudi Arabia owns less than 1% of America's debt. In my April 20 column I dismissed Saudi Foreign Minister Al-Jubeir's claims that the Kingdom would sell "$750 billion in U.S. assets" if such legislation is passed as baseless and grossly overstated. When I wrote that piece, I was dealing with U.S. Treasury Department data that grouped Saudi's holdings of U.S debt among "Oil Exporting Countries." On May 16, after more than 40 years of lumping Saudi's holdings in with other oil producing countries, the Treasury issued new data that broke out U.S. Treasury holdings of those oil exporters individually. I can't believe the timing was a coincidence.

In my column I had pegged Saudi's Treasury holdings in "the $150 billion range" and it turns out my estimates were too high. As of the most recent data (March), Saudi directly owned $116.8 billion in U.S. treasuries. The recent high for that ownership figure was $123.6 billion in January. So, put another way, Saudi Arabia owns 0.87% of the total value of marketable U.S. Treasury debt, and 1.86% of the amount held by foreign owners.
Based on SIFMA data, a liquidation of Saudi's holdings would represent 23.3% of an average day's $501.9 billion dealing in U.S. Treasuries.


So Saudi could liquidate its entire U.S. Treasury holdings in an afternoon and I am guessing the market would barely notice.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2016/05/23/dont-believe-the-hype-saudi-arabia-actually-owns-less-than-1-of-u-s-debt/#49dd78eb1dd1

RobertKK

Billy86 wrote: »

And yet before this weekend your tune was so incredibly, laughably, different...

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=101727123&postcount=8838
It is surprising how many apologists there are for Saudi Arabia despite them being so incompatible with our way of life.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=101764838&postcount=8972
Maybe weapons sales which have and are being used to kill people in Yemen is a much lesser deal to you, and it is hotels that kill people.
Maybe Hillary Clinton and her Saudi policies toward Syria are what you want.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=101759882&postcount=8955
I don't have a problem with Ireland selling food to Saudi Arabia, people have to eat, unlike what the Saudi's are trying to do to Yemen which is starve them.
People who travel need hotels.
You only need weapons to kill people...which doubled what was sold when Clinton was secretary of state versus under the Bush administration...

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=101723137&postcount=8818
For some people a sale of distressed assets that are undertaken by a creditors about 25 years ago is equivalent to the Clintons taking in money from Saudi Arabia in the past 5 or 6 years, after 9/11 when they had been under constant suspicion of being behind 9/11.

Assad is the devil that is known, maybe people prefer the Saudi supported devils who are even far far worse and far far more intolerant.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=101714916&postcount=8785
It depends who you like more:

Trump and his 'Russian connections'.
or
Hillary and her direct links with the governments of Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

Russia blamed for hacking in the US, annexing Crimea and supporting Assad.
Saudi Arabia linked with the 9/11 atrocity and along with Qatar are accused of funding ISIS, along with the most backward practices towards women and gay people.

Hillary would have kept the policies that Saudi Arabia favoured - the removal of Assad.
Trump has to prove he is not a warmonger as he has stated such.

I hope Trump works with Assad and Russia to sort out that mess.
Assad had a secular government and minorities were safe, the people the west and Hillary supported in Syria seem to be nothing more than at the very least a moderate brand of terrorist who helped to destroy their country.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=101722516&postcount=8807
Now look at Syria and the countries backing some of the people against Assad, you have Saudi Arabia and Qatar, who export extremist values of their death cult. Anyone who has to fight these people have my support as they are fighting the most extremist ideology on the planet, two nation accused of funding the most extreme terrorist groups and the Saudis of being behind 9/11.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=101760011&postcount=8956
Personally I was more against Hillary than pro-Trump, but being anti-Clinton meant I did want Trump to win as I feel Trump is a less of a danger to the world than someone who wants to implement Saudi foreign policy in Syria.

And that's just off the first page of results from November!!




But hey, keep selling yourself that con, even if it means going against everything you supposedly stood for before Trump took office.

Your posting style comes across as obsessive, the way you search, I read posts and forget what people say as they are just opinions.

Where are the posts where I wondered if nothing changes as the Pentagon maybe runs the country?

Jelle1880

osarusan wrote: »

I am not at all sure that is true either:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2016/05/23/dont-believe-the-hype-saudi-arabia-actually-owns-less-than-1-of-u-s-debt/#49dd78eb1dd1

How much of Trump's debt might they own ? I guess we'll never know.

Professor Moriarty

orubiru wrote: »

I'm not even sure if this is better or worse than I imagined.

He has basically just taken a list that Obama's people compiled (I assume Obama himself did not just come up with a random list) and decided to just turn restrictions into an outright ban?

Yes it is both discriminatory and hypocritical but at least I understand now where they got the list of 7 countries from.

Obama (like recent Presidents) would have made his decisions under advisement. Trump had a brainfart and decided to implement it.

RobertKK

osarusan wrote: »

I am not at all sure that is true either:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2016/05/23/dont-believe-the-hype-saudi-arabia-actually-owns-less-than-1-of-u-s-debt/#49dd78eb1dd1

Nothing there about changing how they sell oil, they could just make the dollar a far less relevant currency and sell in Saudi riyal.

Igotadose

For those that think just because some Trump relatives are Jewish, Janis Ian has a response for you:

"To my friends who say “His son-in-law is Jewish. It’s OK.” I say, it is NOT OK. It is a disgrace. Steve Bannon is drafting the executive orders for our country, while the ostensible leader of the free world spends his time complaining on Twitter and watching television, where he can change the channels often enough to suit a toddler’s attention span."

Source:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/thank-you-for-not-uttering-the-word-jew-mr-president_us_588d2bcee4b0cd25e4904987

Igotadose

Oh, so much for court orders. Border Patrol (immigration - keeping people penned up in airports these days) is ignoring them. Nice job, Trumplodytes:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/dulles-airport-feds-violated-court-order_us_588d7274e4b08a14f7e67bcf?ncid=inblnkushpmg00000009

ultra violet 5

we are all in a bit guilty ,


look how cheap petrol is in ireland

Billy86

RobertKK wrote: »

Your posting style comes across as obsessive, the way you search, I read posts and forget what people say as they are just opinions.

Where are the posts where I wondered if nothing changes as the Pentagon maybe runs the country?

Nothing obsessive at all Robert, it takes about 30 seconds to click the search icon at the top of the screen and enter 'Saudi' / 'RobertKK'. There's a ridiculous amount of them, given how caught up you were in people-not-named-Trump having connections to Russia and how often you just flat out decided to overlook Trump's association because it didn't fit your narrative. Look, here's another that took me all of a few seconds to find!

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=102138216&postcount=7542
They are worried as the status quo is no longer the policy, that regime change is something that Trump has rejected, and that foreign policy is not a 'us versus them' when it comes to Russia.
The experienced ones always need a bogeyman, like they had with WMD, the rubbish about Gaddafi and Benghazi, Assad in Syria, meanwhile going easy on the biggest terrorist supporting nation that is Saudi Arabia.

scamalert

people put to much thought into why trump choose them countries,just look economically,each country chosen is either piss poor or government is non existent,even if they wished to do anything they would be able to,since they are so unstable internally .

So trump promised to ban emigration and what does bully do pick weakest countries and says made it ,job done.

if it was Pakistan who basically are largest immigrant group world wide,the real terror would be in every US city by thousands.UAE are shielded by US to get oil,piss them off and they can go any country with the amount of cash they have not to mention influence in middle east.

listermint

RobertKK wrote: »

Did you happen to avoid noticing that the travel ban are on nations that are not called US allies?
The US even have a US preclearance in the UAE.
US have their biggest military base in Qatar with around 10,000 troops based there.
All these countries are allied to the Saudis.

The US know the Saudis could put their economy into a deep recession if they wanted to.
It is much bigger than Trump's business interests, only looking at it from that perspective is myopic.

I said I want less wars, given the alternative voted for every war going and criticised Obama over not getting more involved in Syria.

Robert wants less wars but his on hear harping on about how good it is that DJ has single handedly stoked the flames across the middle east with the stroke of a pen.

This is quality stuff Bob keep it coming.


Less wars woooo.

RobertKK

listermint wrote: »

Robert wants less wars but his on hear harping on about how good it is that DJ has single handedly stoked the flames across the middle east with the stroke of a pen.

This is quality stuff Bob keep it coming.


Less wars woooo.

Maybe you are Rip Van Winkle and have just woken up.

He has stoked nothing across the middle east, you post as if it was a bastion of peace.

ultra violet 5

why is this thread called hail,

why hail, ken?

in my opinion it was originally supposed to be funny, then it became post-realistic-realism