Hail To The Chief (Read Mod Warning In OP)

RobertKK · 30-01-2017 03:05PM

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Time for alternative facts (which are actually true for a change).

Pakistan is spending $10,000,000,000 on defence each year , purchasing items such as helicopters from a country that shall not be named. Pakistan will also receive $260,000,000 foreign military assistance in 2017 from a country that shall not be named.

Saudi Arabia spends $87,000,000,000 on defence and is the biggest weapons customer of a country that shall not be named.

That is a lot of purchases in 10 days...

Did the Trump administration authorise the sales and the military aid to Pakistan?

Christy42 · 30-01-2017 03:05PM

RobertKK wrote: »

US preclearance is effectively US soil.
All that would be done is needless extra hassle for people arriving from Dublin ans Shannon airports to the US.

Katherine Zappone is one of those idiots who think being hostile to an ally will somehow be more effective.
Donald Trump did it with NATO members who were not paying their share, even if the figure was aspirational and something members should aim for, and after talking with Theresa May he says he is 100% behind NATO.

Zappone would achieve nothing if she got her way, absolutely nothing, just hassle for travelers that people would rather get over with at either Dublin or Shannon, instead of when they arrive in the US.

I don't get why you keep blaming Zappone for this.

Trump tought nothing. I repeat nothing of the hassle this order would cause to anyone. This is 100% all on Trump. I have no interest in my country assisting in a Muslim ban.

I don't trust Trump being behind NATO one jolt either. He doesn't care for the truth. They may blame Trump for any inconvenience caused. It is after all entirely his fault.

I see no reason to carry out a morally bankrupt policy purely for the sake of an ally. An ally would not require it.

Igotadose · 30-01-2017 03:09PM

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Weird considering his daughter, son in law and grandkids are Jewish

Bannon probably wrote it. Trump, however, gets the blame - "The buck stops here."

Igotadose · 30-01-2017 03:11PM

Billy86 wrote: »

Then why do you think has he not included Saudi and Pakistan, probably the main two culprits on the planet of what he calls 'exporting terror' especially as pertaining to the US?

Because he doesn't have business interests there.

My name is URL · 30-01-2017 03:15PM

I see even the Kochs have come out against Trump now. When the money masters of the GOP speak against him you can expect many within the party to follow.

Impeachment just became far more likely I'd say

Billionaire Republican donor Charles Koch likens Donald Trump's Muslim ban to Adolf Hitler's policies in Nazi Germany

VinLieger · 30-01-2017 03:18PM

My name is URL wrote: »

I see even the Kochs have come out against Trump now. When the money masters of the GOP speak against him you can expect many within the party to follow.

Impeachment just became far more likely I'd say

Billionaire Republican donor Charles Koch likens Donald Trump's Muslim ban to Adolf Hitler's policies in Nazi Germany

Waiting for the trump supporters to try claiming its not that a big deal, likely cus they have no idea who the Kochs actually are and how important they are to the republican party establishment, ie all of the republicans in congress and the senate

Billy86 · 30-01-2017 03:18PM

RobertKK wrote: »

US preclearance is effectively US soil.
All that would be done is needless extra hassle for people arriving from Dublin ans Shannon airports to the US.

Katherine Zappone is one of those idiots who think being hostile to an ally will somehow be more effective.
Donald Trump did it with NATO members who were not paying their share, even if the figure was aspirational and something members should aim for, and after talking with Theresa May he says he is 100% behind NATO.

Zappone would achieve nothing if she got her way, absolutely nothing, just hassle for travelers that people would rather get over with at either Dublin or Shannon, instead of when they arrive in the US.

Surely Robert, you agree that it's very dodgy for Trump to be leaving Pakistan and Saudi Arabia off the list given how critical of any special treatment of dealings with the latter you were before he took office?

Professor Moriarty · 30-01-2017 03:19PM

RobertKK wrote: »

That is a lot of purchases in 10 days...

Did the Trump administration authorise the sales and the military aid to Pakistan?

No. Will they stop it, do you think?

Why were those seven countries chosen and not others such as Turkey, Egypt, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia? It's because those four countries spend a lot of their defence budget with the US.

The 9/11 bombers came from the SA, Egypt, UAE and Lebanon. But none of those countries are on the list. Why? Is it anything to do with the fact that Egypt, the UAE and SA are in the top ten weapons customers of the US?

VinLieger · 30-01-2017 03:21PM

RobertKK wrote: »

That is a lot of purchases in 10 days...

Did the Trump administration authorise the sales and the military aid to Pakistan?

You've made the point your pushing here ad nauseum, we get it Obama's not that great.

But do you not think its slightly dodgy that these countries who's citizens have been the most prolific in killing US citizens were left off the list while also being some of the largest purchasers of military hardware?

Billy86 · 30-01-2017 03:22PM

orubiru wrote: »

OK, here is something I am not understanding at all.

How have they chosen the 7 countries to be banned?

Have they literally just taken the 7 countries with the highest % of Muslim population and banned them? How did they even measure that? Census information?

They didn't choose the seven countries with the highest numbers of terrorism participation, now did they? Maybe you can be the one to let us know why Saudi Arabia and Pakistan were not on this list?

They haven't banned all Muslims so it isn't a "Muslim Ban" as such and they haven't banned Saudi Arabia so that doesn't make any sense from the "it'll stop terrorists" perspective.

If there are 40+ "Muslim countries" (how is that even decided?) in the world then how the hell have they selected these 7 for this kind of treatment?

It's typically decided by state religion and the percentage of the population following said religion. The fact that all are 90% Muslim or higher, and six are at least 96.6% Muslim, with special arrangements apparently having been made for non-Muslims from those countries means that yes, it is a Muslim ban. If not, what else is it aimed at? Because it's not aimed at terrorism unless someone can tell us why they left Saudi Arabia and Pakistan off the list.

orubiru · 30-01-2017 03:22PM

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Time for alternative facts (which are actually true for a change).

Pakistan is spending $10,000,000,000 on defence each year , purchasing items such as helicopters from a country that shall not be named. Pakistan will also receive $260,000,000 foreign military assistance in 2017 from a country that shall not be named.

Saudi Arabia spends $87,000,000,000 on defence and is the biggest weapons customer of a country that shall not be named.

Yeah, it has now gone beyond the ridiculous notion of a clueless celebrity running the country.

The news coverage is woefully lacking though.

Why are these 7 countries being singled out?

Did his advisers tell him that he cannot simply ban all people from countries that are considered Muslim countries and so they've settled on this list of 7 hoping to appease his supporters/voters while trying (and spectacularly failing) to avoid public outrage?

Billy86 · 30-01-2017 03:24PM

orubiru wrote: »

Yeah, it has now gone beyond the ridiculous notion of a clueless celebrity running the country.

The news coverage is woefully lacking though.

Why are these 7 countries being singled out?

Did his advisers tell him that he cannot simply ban all people from countries that are considered Muslim countries and so they've settled on this list of 7 hoping to appease his supporters/voters while trying (and spectacularly failing) to avoid damaging the Trump family's pockets?

Fixed your post for you.

RobertKK · 30-01-2017 03:26PM

Christy42 wrote: »

I don't get why you keep blaming Zappone for this.

Trump tought nothing. I repeat nothing of the hassle this order would cause to anyone. This is 100% all on Trump. I have no interest in my country assisting in a Muslim ban.

I don't trust Trump being behind NATO one jolt either. He doesn't care for the truth. They may blame Trump for any inconvenience caused. It is after all entirely his fault.

I see no reason to carry out a morally bankrupt policy purely for the sake of an ally. An ally would not require it.

She is the one proposing this, that is why I blame her, call me selfish, but I love having US preclearance here in Ireland, irrespective if I like or hate the policies of the US.
There are policies I dislike from the previous president as I have spoken about on many occasions, but I would not propose to suspend US preclearance in protest.
I know she is saying this is directly related to US preclearance, but for 99.9% of travelers it would have no impact, and all she wants is hassle for people she claims to represent.

Calahonda52 · 30-01-2017 03:30PM

RobertKK wrote: »

She is the one proposing this, that is why I blame her, call me selfish, but I love having US preclearance here in Ireland, irrespective if I like or hate the policies of the US.
There are policies I dislike from the previous president as I have spoken about on many occasions, but I would not propose to suspend US preclearance in protest.
I know she is saying this is directly related to US preclearance, but for 99.9% of travelers it would have no impact, and all she wants is hassle for people she claims to represent.

She is looking for airtime: nothing more: Time to revoke this stupid idea of dual citizenship, starting with her.

Christy42 · 30-01-2017 03:31PM

RobertKK wrote: »

She is the one proposing this, that is why I blame her, call me selfish, but I love having US preclearance here in Ireland, irrespective if I like or hate the policies of the US.
There are policies I dislike from the previous president as I have spoken about on many occasions, but I would not propose to suspend US preclearance in protest.
I know she is saying this is directly related to US preclearance, but for 99.9% of travelers it would have no impact, and all she wants is hassle for people she claims to represent.

Pretty sure Trump proposed the Muslim ban...

I am not proposing a protest. I am proposing not have such morally bankrupt policy enforced on this island. Obviously whst happens up north is the business of the UK. We should not be an active participant. The US can then do whst it likes when people get there.

orubiru · 30-01-2017 03:32PM

Billy86 wrote: »

They didn't choose the seven countries with the highest numbers of terrorism participation, now did they? Maybe you can be the one to let us know why Saudi Arabia and Pakistan were not on this list?

It's typically decided by state religion and the percentage of the population following said religion. The fact that all are 90% Muslim or higher, and six are at least 96.6% Muslim, with special arrangements apparently having been made for non-Muslims from those countries means that yes, it is a Muslim ban. If not, what else is it aimed at? Because it's not aimed at terrorism unless someone can tell us why they left Saudi Arabia and Pakistan off the list.

Billy86, I was asking you. Read my post again.

I was speculating on how they came up with the list in the first place.

I said: Have they literally just taken the 7 countries with the highest % of Muslim population and banned them? How did they even measure that? Census information?

Your replied: They didn't choose the seven countries with the highest numbers of terrorism participation, now did they?

WTF is that all about? Did you even read my post?

You then asked, with an extra helping of snark: "Maybe you can be the one to let us know why Saudi Arabia and Pakistan were not on this list?"

I DO NOT KNOW why Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are not on that list. It makes no goddamn sense. Which is why I asked how/why these countries have been selected.

I agree it's not aimed at Muslims and it's not aimed at Terrorism because if it was then other countries would be on the list.

Surely the obvious follow up question is HOW did they come up with this list?

RobertKK · 30-01-2017 03:33PM

VinLieger wrote: »

You've made the point your pushing here ad nauseum, we get it Obama's not that great.

But do you not think its slightly dodgy that these countries who's citizens have been the most prolific in killing US citizens were left off the list while also being some of the largest purchasers of military hardware?

Maybe policy simply has not changed to the countries mentioned which are Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.

I saw some good points made in this thread in relation to this.
The US dollar and selling oil in US dollars.
Iraq had changed from selling oil in dollars to Euro, next thing lies and a war and oil then back to being sold in dollars.
Then there is the vast investments the Saudis said they would withdraw from the US if the US did anything to them.

I think for a long time there has been extreme appeasement going on with the Saudis who are too wealthy which makes them the most dangerous nation on Earth given the extremism they support.

RobertKK · 30-01-2017 03:34PM

Christy42 wrote: »

Pretty sure Trump proposed the Muslim ban...

I am not proposing a protest. I am proposing not have such morally bankrupt policy enforced on this island. Obviously whst happens up north is the business of the UK. We should not be an active participant. The US can then do whst it likes when people get there.

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.

Professor Moriarty · 30-01-2017 03:35PM

orubiru wrote: »

Yeah, it has now gone beyond the ridiculous notion of a clueless celebrity running the country.

The news coverage is woefully lacking though.

Why are these 7 countries being singled out?

Did his advisers tell him that he cannot simply ban all people from countries that are considered Muslim countries and so they've settled on this list of 7 hoping to appease his supporters/voters while trying (and spectacularly failing) to avoid public outrage?

Trump Organisation:

2017-trump-immigration-ban-conflict-of-interest_twitter.png?v=1

orubiru · 30-01-2017 03:38PM

Billy86 wrote: »

Fixed your post for you.

What the hell is wrong with you?

Please read the damn posts properly before responding.

The ban is ridiculous. There's not much more you can say about it really. It's wrong, so obviously wrong, to any one with even a shred of common sense. I am not debating if it is right or if it is wrong. It is wrong and it will achieve nothing. Full stop.

I am asking where this list of nations came from. How did they compile the list? Why only 7 nations? Why not 10 or 15 or whatever? Yes, if this is supposed to be a Muslim or a Terrorist ban then why not include Saudia Arabia and Pakistan etc?

Billy86 · 30-01-2017 03:40PM

orubiru wrote: »

Billy86, I was asking you. Read my post again.

I was speculating on how they came up with the list in the first place.

I said: Have they literally just taken the 7 countries with the highest % of Muslim population and banned them? How did they even measure that? Census information?

Your replied: They didn't choose the seven countries with the highest numbers of terrorism participation, now did they?

WTF is that all about? Did you even read my post?

You then asked, with an extra helping of snark: "Maybe you can be the one to let us know why Saudi Arabia and Pakistan were not on this list?"

I DO NOT KNOW why Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are not on that list. It makes no goddamn sense. Which is why I asked how/why these countries have been selected.

I agree it's not aimed at Muslims and it's not aimed at Terrorism because if it was then other countries would be on the list.

Surely the obvious follow up question is HOW did they come up with this list?

Professor Moriarty just answered your question about a post up as to why Trump chose the countries he did in the region. It's pretty self explanatory.

Billy86 · 30-01-2017 03:41PM

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.

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

Satriale · 30-01-2017 03:41PM

RobertKK wrote: »

Katherine Zappone wants US pre-clearance removed from Dublin and Shannon over the travel ban controversy.

I just want to say she can go to hell if she wants that, it is a great facility that only we have in Europe and makes US travel so much easier once you board the plane, and arrive as if a US citizen.

She says it should be done as a protest against discrimination, when it is Irish people and others who use those airports for these facilities.
Nothing better than having the immigration stuff done before arriving in the US, especially if you have a connecting flight.

She shouldn't be trying to make things more complicated for us, but I don't think anyone of importance will listen to minister Zappone.

I wouldnt take any notice of Katherine Zapone on the subject of travelling anywhere, when she cant even get her mileage right on the way to work.

Although it is funny how she didnt get it wrong in the other direction though. :rolleyes:

Leroy42 · 30-01-2017 03:42PM

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.

ultra violet 5 · 30-01-2017 03:43PM

whats the president up to now,

has he said anything about ireland yet?

i heard theyre going to be building a 200,000 tonne stone wall ao the doonbeg golfcourse to keep the sea-erosion out,

word on the street is will be built from limestone,

should be a bit of work for stone-masons

Satriale · 30-01-2017 03:48PM

ultra violet 5 wrote: »

whats the president up to now,

has he said anything about ireland yet?

i heard theyre going to be building a 200,000 tonne stone wall ao the doonbeg golfcourse to keep the sea-erosion out,

word on the street is will be built from limestone,

should be a bit of work for stone-masons

That's just to keep out Mexican waves....

...Ba tum tish.

Professor Moriarty · 30-01-2017 03:49PM

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.

Trump said: "Donald J. Trump is calling for a complete and total shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what the hell is going on."

orubiru · 30-01-2017 03:50PM

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Trump Organisation:

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?

RobertKK · 30-01-2017 03:50PM

Trump says they have saved $600 million on the purchase of 90 F-35s, and that 3000 are being ordered, and he had started talks with them a month ago.
He says the US will save billions on contracts.

PopePalpatine · 30-01-2017 03:51PM

ricero wrote: »

A Muslim ban yet none of the countries on the list are even in the top 5 population of countries with Muslim citizens. god damn liberal media need to got off the Donalds' back and let him get on with the job

Aw, does President Snowflake want a safe space away from "die Luegenpresse"? :rolleyes:

Hail To The Chief (Read Mod Warning In OP)

Comments