Country's Full - Trump Slams Door on Refugees

[MomentsofSanity]

I do. A politician saying he's going to do something and then actually doing it is refreshing. It's a good thing, we should demand it from all politicians.



Nope, the fact that he's doing what he promised to do doesn't make it right. It just means he's doing exactly what those who elected him wanted him to do. Just because a lot of lefty idiots think it's wrong doesn't make it wrong. He's doing the right things for the country, even if he has to drag a bunch of tantrum throwing snowflakes along.



It's almost like you think people should care about the popular vote.

I'm saying it's not surprising that a lot of people disagree with him. The fact he won the election doesn't change the fact that a lot of people think his ideas are shitty.

 

[PokerGuy]

You dumbass. You are the one embracing this crap because of how scared you are of "others" and how they are going to ruin your life (or already have), or somehow end it.

Funny that you think you know why I embrace things. 😀 😀 The fact is that there are many people in the world who want to hurt us. The fewer of them we allow into the country, the better. We want to let the people who can add to the country in, and keep the rest out, and it's not always easy to discern which is which. Completely logical approach.

Oh, snowflake, it was a mirror you were looking at the whole time. Notice your whole post is whining?

My post, whining? lol, I'm not whining at all, just laughing and the lefty snowflakes continuing to throw ever-more elaborate foot stomping tantrums because they are not getting their way.

 

[emperus]

Funny that you think you know why I embrace things. 😀 😀 The fact is that there are many people in the world who want to hurt us. The fewer of them we allow into the country, the better. We want to let the people who can add to the country in, and keep the rest out, and it's not always easy to discern which is which. Completely logical approach.

My post, whining? lol, I'm not whining at all, just laughing and the lefty snowflakes continuing to throw ever-more elaborate foot stomping tantrums because they are not getting their way.

Let me ask you a question. I know you agree with the policy, but is this the way you envision your government enacting major policies? I have been thinking about all the extra costs this has burdened us with.

 

[PokerGuy]

I'm saying it's not surprising that a lot of people disagree with him.

Agreed, it's not at all surprising.

The fact he won the election doesn't change the fact that a lot of people think his ideas are sh*tty.

Nobody has said that the fact that he won the election makes his ideas good. The point is, he said he was going to do these things, he won the election, and he's doing these things. That's exactly how it should work. Those throwing a temper tantrum at everything Trump does are just going to be laughed at and ignored as they should be.

 

[PokerGuy]

Let me ask you a question. I know you agree with the policy, but is this the way you envision your government enacting major policies? I have been thinking about all the extra costs this has burdened us with.

Look, I'm sure there are things that could be done better. I have zero problem with people pointing out things that can and should be done better. If it was done in the way of honest feedback or constructive criticism, it would be a good thing. Throwing tantrums and demanding that Trump not do the exact things he said he was going to do is just laughably stupid. It's the exact kind of behavior that got Trump elected.

 

[Pens1566]

Has anyone pointed out yet that this ban, if enacted say at the beginning of the GWB admin, would not have prevented a single act of terror? Asking for a friend.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Has anyone pointed out yet that this ban, if enacted say at the beginning of the GWB admin, would not have prevented a single act of terror? Asking for a friend.

Can you honestly say that it might not help future acts of violence or terror?

 

[Pens1566]

Can you honestly say that it might not help future acts of violence or terror?

You mean like the anti-tiger rock I keep in my pocket? Yeah, same efficacy.

 

[sdifox]

You mean like the anti-tiger rock I keep in my pocket? Yeah, same efficacy.

There are no tigers in America. I have my zoology badge 🙂

 

[Pens1566]

There are no tigers in America. I have my zoology badge 🙂

That's only because a lot of us have these rocks.

 

[jackstar7]

The fact is that there are many people in the world who want to hurt us..

There are not many, you whiny persecution-complex-having coward.

What an absurd thing to call a "fact". But that's your whole reality and why you are derided here repeatedly.

 

[ivwshane]

Is English a second language for you? Or third as you obvious lack comprehension.

First I didn't see where she mentioned "Single Market, Common Market or Unified Market". You got a quote on that from her original speech? And even your own link says it opens the borders for a single market.

I noticed your cherry picking parts of a whole. Read the entire subject from your link:

A single market is a type of trade bloc in which most trade barriers have been removed (for goods) with some common policies on product regulation, and freedom of movement of the factors of production (capital and labour) and of enterprise and services. The goal is that the movement of capital, labour, goods, and services between the members is as easy as within them.[1] The physical (borders), technical (standards) and fiscal (taxes) barriers among the member states are removed to the maximum extent possible. These barriers obstruct the freedom of movement of the four factors of production.

A common market is usually referred to as the first stage towards the creation of a single market. It usually is built upon a free trade area with relatively free movement of capital and of services, but not so advanced in reduction of the rest of the trade barriers.

A unified market is the last stage and ultimate goal of a single market. It requires the total free movement of goods, services (including financial services), capital and people without regard to national boundaries.

She mentioned it in the full quote I provide you!

English! Mother fucker! Do you read it!

 

[TheVrolok]

Agreed, it's not at all surprising.



Nobody has said that the fact that he won the election makes his ideas good. The point is, he said he was going to do these things, he won the election, and he's doing these things. That's exactly how it should work. Those throwing a temper tantrum at everything Trump does are just going to be laughed at and ignored as they should be.

So if a candidate you don't support with policies you don't support gets elected and acts on those policies, you shouldn't complain? Really?

 

[HomerJS]

All the hysteria and whining and sniveling from the lefty snowflakes is absolutely priceless. It's absolutely shocking to see a president actually do the things he promised to do during his campaign.

Those whining about not including countries like Saudi Arabia etc in the list, keep in mind that this was just a starting point. The policy clearly sets the state for adding more to the bad list if they don't provide sufficient information needed to do thorough vetting.

So far this presidency is looking great.

Now back to your sniveling and whining, lol

So what exactly did we accomplish that the current vetting process didn't?? This hastily rolled out edict isn't fact based but fear based.

 

[emperus]

Look, I'm sure there are things that could be done better. I have zero problem with people pointing out things that can and should be done better. If it was done in the way of honest feedback or constructive criticism, it would be a good thing. Throwing tantrums and demanding that Trump not do the exact things he said he was going to do is just laughably stupid. It's the exact kind of behavior that got Trump elected.

Honest Feedback or Constructive criticism? I think you are mistaken as to how our government works. Just because Trump campaigns on something or decides he wants to do something doesn't mean it's legal for him to do it. And it doesn't mean we have to just accept it.

It's amazing that during the Obama administration, Obama was harassed for his executive orders. Orders that lawyers reviewed before putting out and all relevant agencies were consulted on. Here we have a president, who signs an EO without involving relevant agencies, without any legal review and that is poorly executed. Yet, the right is absolutely silent on the his use of EOs and absolutely silent on the constitutional issues surrounding it.

 

[desura]

Has anyone pointed out yet that this ban, if enacted say at the beginning of the GWB admin, would not have prevented a single act of terror? Asking for a friend.

Yes, the ban as it is worded is all wrong. But a more comprehensive ban enacted in say 1996 arguably could have prevented 9-11 and with that also prevented wars in the Middle East which killed hundreds of thousands of Muslims. So, it is for their good and ours.

 

[Ackmed]

Agreed save for bolded bit. Guiliani himself said it was a 'Muslim ban' yet disguised in a way that didnt oppose the Constitution - sort of like a loophole.

Don't make excuses for these xenophobic idiots that reside in this admin - it should be very well known by now that they are as stupid, incompetent and racist as they were prior to being elected.

I dont like what Rudy said. I don't like much of anything he says anymore, seems unhinged all the time. That doesn't change the fact that it is not an immigrant or muslim ban. Yet there are countless headlines that state this. There are millions of immigrant or muslims from countries not on the 90 day ban that are still welcome. It is not factual, to call it an "immigrant", "immigration", "muslim" ban or anything like that. I didnt make excuses for anyone, you should learn to comprehend better. The executive order signed is not a ban on the entire muslim population, immigrant population like some media outlets are claiming. The untruthful titles are creating more hysteria when that is the last thing we need. As I said in my first post, you can easily make a case that this is a bad order and stick to the facts. I don't think wanting our press to be truthful and sticking to facts is a bad thing. Of course that would be nice if the new presidential staff would do the same too.

 

[PlanetJosh]

The White House says they didn't announce the ban ahead of time because it would've given terrorists time to enter the country before a ban took effect. I can understand that. I'm not saying I'm for the ban. What about all the green card holders and people with visas Trump is letting in from the seven countries? Can a conservative explain that to me?

A conservative knows that all the green card/visa people could not possibly have been vetted properly over the last months and years to earn those visas and cards to Trump's satisfaction. And now he's letting them back in by reversing last Friday's decision to ban them. So isn't he letting in possible terrorists when he believes he had it right the first time on Friday? I'm pointing out inconsistencies, I'm not agreeing with the ban.

Now I realize Trump can try to get out of that contradiction by saying they will be vetted vigorously while they reside in the U.S. Oh yeah? How does that prevent a terrorist attack by some of them during this yet to be fully described inside the U.S. vetting?

 

[PokerGuy]

So if a candidate you don't support with policies you don't support gets elected and acts on those policies, you shouldn't complain? Really?

Nobody said you shouldn't complain. Complain away, heaven knows every conservative complained about obummer as well. That's perfectly fine, I have zero issue with people complaining.

It's just funny to see all the sniveling whiners with their foot stomping tantrums and histrionics because they didn't get their way and that evil meanie Trump is in the White House. This is what happens when you get a whole generation who've been told all their lives they are precious snowflakes and they are entitled to get their way. All of a sudden when they don't, it's time to get hysterical, protest, loot, riot, get violent against Trump supporters etc etc etc.

 

[MrSquished]

All of a sudden when they don't, it's time to get hysterical, protest, loot, riot, get violent against Trump supporters etc etc etc.

You live in an alternate reality. First off, protesting - completely normal and a big part of our democratic process. It's no wonder a Trumpist hates it. As far as the looting and rioting goes, that was pretty much limited to a bunch of Anarchists who love to take advantage of discord and do their thing. During the women's marches, which were yuge, there was pretty much nothing but peaceful protest. And to the very limited amount of violence during any of the protests, I will be the first to condemn it.

You throw out words such as loot, riot & get violent like they are the norm when they in fact are far from the norm.

Par for the course for a delusional and pathologically lying Trumpist world.

 

[zinfamous]

Nobody said you shouldn't complain. Complain away, heaven knows every conservative complained about obummer as well. That's perfectly fine, I have zero issue with people complaining.

It's just funny to see all the sniveling whiners with their foot stomping tantrums and histrionics because they didn't get their way and that evil meanie Trump is in the White House. This is what happens when you get a whole generation who've been told all their lives they are precious snowflakes and they are entitled to get their way. All of a sudden when they don't, it's time to get hysterical, protest, loot, riot, get violent against Trump supporters etc etc etc.

People just doing what Trump told them they should do before the election: protest the results of the fraudulent election and the disaster EC, right?

man, you really are worked up about this, PG? Just can't get enough of it, eh? safespace getting smaller? A bit of guilt trickling in?

 

[Dulanic]

Can you honestly say that it might not help future acts of violence or terror?

I believe if anything it gives the extremists more recruiting ammo and may have the opposite effect. But no one can prove anything until it happens or not.

 

[MixMasterTang]

I believe if anything it gives the extremists more recruiting ammo and may have the opposite effect. But no one can prove anything until it happens or not.

Still wouldn't be able to prove that it hurt or helped since we wouldn't know the outcome of the opposite decision. But I agree with your opinion that this will likely backfire against the US.

 

[Victorian Gray]

There are no tigers in America. I have my zoology badge 🙂

That's how well the rock works.

 

[agent00f]

Was Obama a fascist?

Where were the protests when this dictator gave this speech about illegal immigrants?

I do. A politician saying he's going to do something and then actually doing it is refreshing. It's a good thing, we should demand it from all politicians.

Nope, the fact that he's doing what he promised to do doesn't make it right. It just means he's doing exactly what those who elected him wanted him to do. Just because a lot of lefty idiots think it's wrong doesn't make it wrong. He's doing the right things for the country, even if he has to drag a bunch of tantrum throwing snowflakes along.

It's almost like you think people should care about the popular vote.

Something I mentioned in another thread but it bares repeating here: https://forums.anandtech.com/thread...d-a-man-to-death.2498037/page-8#post-38711536

You can pretty much tell which ones are which.