• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

President Trump did not ban Muslims from the United States

MaggieD said:
Oh, for Gods sake. Do you have Google? Do you read posts on this website?
Click to expand...

Yes I do and nobody has made that argument. A lot of people on the right are arguing that people on the left are making that argument, but I have not heard anyone claim this was a permanent and total Muslim Ban. Some took issue that Christians are to be given preference after the ban goes down and others pointed out this started from a campaign pledge from Trump seeking a temporary ban on all Muslims, but nobody is or has asserted the argument that it was a total and permanent ban on all Muslims.

So are you making a strawman?
 
CriticalThought said:
Was anyone actually claiming it was a total and permanent ban on Muslims or is this a straw man?
Click to expand...

Yes.

Salon at least had the decency to put "Muslim Ban" in parenthesis - Donald Trump?s ?Muslim ban? is already backfiring ? and its consequences will only get worse - Salon.com

The NY Times wasn't so decent - Donald Trump?s ?Muslim ban? is already backfiring ? and its consequences will only get worse - Salon.com

nor was Al Jazeera. Though, to be fair, they were quoting someone from Iran - Iran: Trump's Muslim ban 'will rip our family apart' | | Al Jazeera

HuffPo? Muslim Ban - U.S. Diplomats Drafted A 'Dissent Memo' Objecting To Trump's Muslim Ban | The Huffington Post

Likewise MSNBC - Trump stumbles into international crisis with Muslim ban | MSNBC
 
MaggieD said:
I completely agree with you that this was sooo ill-conceived. If he took advice, it was bad advice. If he didn't take advice, he's a fool. I think he took bad advice. I'd call it the slash and burn option, frankly. I'd have brought the appropriate senate committee in on it and all appropriate depts for their input. There's no doubt this was sooo badly handled.
Click to expand...

And it's your fault. Every ill conceived "mis-handled" thing this administration is about to do could be viewed a mile away. You should have known better before voting. You voted for a man that will spend days thinking and arguing about his crowd size yet mere minutes about an EO on immigration that affects the country and our troops and citizens abroad.
 
Sweden said:
I want Trump to succeed. But this not-quite-a-ban-more-of-a-gesture was ill-considered. A pointless chaotic blunder which damaged Trump's reputation internationally. I hope for his sake and America's we don't get any more like this.
Click to expand...

As long as Bannon and Miller are writing the executive orders, it's only going to get worse.

I'm quite proud of the international community like you showing their concern over trump.

I see the UK conservative leader is being pressed to cancel trump's invitation for a state visit .
 
NIMBY said:
Some of the very best GOP Senators, like Corker, Alexander, and Portman, don't think it's a good idea.

One of the most conservative congressmen, Rep. McCaul, doesn't think it's a good idea.

The GOP governor of my state of Illinois, also MaggieD's state, doesn't think it's a good idea.

GOPs are feeling the heat across the nation .
Click to expand...

Yet they thought it was a good idea to vote for the retard in chief in the first place.
 
MaggieD said:
I completely agree with you that this was sooo ill-conceived. If he took advice, it was bad advice. If he didn't take advice, he's a fool. I think he took bad advice. I'd call it the slash and burn option, frankly. I'd have brought the appropriate senate committee in on it and all appropriate depts for their input. There's no doubt this was sooo badly handled.
Click to expand...

Agreed, thanks Maggie, this is why you're the best :).

*hugs*
 
Lutherf said:
Yes.

Salon at least had the decency to put "Muslim Ban" in parenthesis - Donald Trump?s ?Muslim ban? is already backfiring ? and its consequences will only get worse - Salon.com

The NY Times wasn't so decent - Donald Trump?s ?Muslim ban? is already backfiring ? and its consequences will only get worse - Salon.com

nor was Al Jazeera. Though, to be fair, they were quoting someone from Iran - Iran: Trump's Muslim ban 'will rip our family apart' | | Al Jazeera

HuffPo? Muslim Ban - U.S. Diplomats Drafted A 'Dissent Memo' Objecting To Trump's Muslim Ban | The Huffington Post

Likewise MSNBC - Trump stumbles into international crisis with Muslim ban | MSNBC
Click to expand...

I am not playing the healine game. If your argument is that the media used the words "Muslim ban" in headlines, then you are correct. But that does not mean anyone argued, as the OP was asserting, that Trump's action was a total and permanent ban on Muslims
 
roughdraft274 said:
Absolutely correct. Not a Muslim ban.

The EO he issued was poorly thought out, not vetted by actual career officials familiar with our systems etc. that resulted in unneeded mass confusion and international chaos. It resulted in us sending back hard working people that were already living and working in the US. Contributing members of our society who already had visas and have had thorough back ground checks. Our country is no safer by halting a cleveland clinic doctor from coming back from visiting her family ETC.

This EO is the perfect symbol of what the Trump presidency is and will be. No intelligence, no forethought, no consideration, no nuance, no giving a ****.

And this is coming from a liberal who wouldn't mind profiling middle eastern people at airports, extreme vetting of any refugees etc. This was stupid. Trump supporters are simply happy to see our country fail because it's not exactly what they want. They are the childish brat who would rather break the toy than share it with the class.
Click to expand...

So you don't want to discuss the OP, you just want to engage in "I hate Pres. Trump, but I don't know why!!", is that correct??
 
Spartacus FPV said:
Are you that much of a rabid hyperpartisan that you don't believe anyone on the other side cares about truth?
Click to expand...

The vast majority of Americans are more likely to believe Giuliani over trump.

Saying it isn't a Muslim ban is just another alternative fact.

The worst part for trump is that GOP Senators are now coming out against him.

Both GOP and DEM appointed judges are ruling against trump .
 
faithful_servant said:
So you don't want to discuss the OP, you just want to engage in "I hate Pres. Trump, but I don't know why!!", is that correct??
Click to expand...

Read the very first sentence of my post. It was a direct answer. The rest of the post addressed the EO that was referenced in the original post. If you feel that it was off topic then report it. Otherwise, find something useful to say and I'll respond to it.
 
NIMBY said:
Which is why you failed to do it .
Click to expand...

Hmmm? OK...one of the countries mentioned is Turkey. Turkey is a NATO ally so it's not like we can do something about that without changing their membership status. Another countries on the list as being avoided due to supposed business interests is Saudi Arabia. No one has ever done anything about SA. You want to send Obama over there to bow to their king a few more times to make them behave? Further, there are a bunch of Muslim majority countries that are not on the restricted list and wasn't mentioned to be involved in business with Trump.

Game. Set. Match.

So shallow of an assertion that I can't believe people actually think it has merit.
 
NIMBY said:
The trumpistani deflectors with their alternative fact-fee lies are in for a long 21 months until 11/06/2018 .
Click to expand...

So you don't want to discuss the OP, you just want to engage in "I hate Pres. Trump, but I don't know why!!", is that correct??
 
CriticalThought said:
I am not playing the healine game. If your argument is that the media used the words "Muslim ban" in headlines, then you are correct. But that does not mean anyone argued, as the OP was asserting, that Trump's action was a total and permanent ban on Muslims
Click to expand...

True. It just means that pretty much the whole of the left wing media buckled down, thought really hard, and made a concerted effort to imply that it was a ban on all Muslims because they know that 80% of the population will never bother to read past the headline.
 
CriticalThought said:
Yes I do and nobody has made that argument. A lot of people on the right are arguing that people on the left are making that argument, but I have not heard anyone claim this was a permanent and total Muslim Ban. Some took issue that Christians are to be given preference after the ban goes down and others pointed out this started from a campaign pledge from Trump seeking a temporary ban on all Muslims, but nobody is or has asserted the argument that it was a total and permanent ban on all Muslims.

So are you making a strawman?
Click to expand...

No. Why not just read thru this thread? This website? Why not Google?
 
faithful_servant said:
So you don't want to discuss the OP, you just want to engage in "I hate Pres. Trump, but I don't know why!!", is that correct??
Click to expand...

The OP is arguing that someone, somewhere has suggested that Trump's ban is a complete and permanent ban on all Muslims. She asks that this mystery person be honest about the situation. As it stands I can't find this person because when most people use the words "Muslim ban" they are not using it the way she thinks they are. Those words refer to people from 7 Muslim Majority countries who have been denied entry into the U.S. for 90-120 days and the choice to give Christian folk from those countries preference after that time. So the OP has misconstrued how most people are using those words and taken it as dishonesty because she reads more into it.
 
MaggieD said:
No. Why not just read thru this thread? This website? Why not Google?
Click to expand...

Why can't you just quote one person who has said this was a total and permanent ban on Muslims?

Or is this a strawman?
 
faithful_servant said:
So you don't want to discuss the OP, you just want to engage in "I hate Pres. Trump, but I don't know why!!", is that correct??
Click to expand...

The only posters who don't want to discuss the thread content of a trump ****up are trumpistani deflectors like you.

At zero time did you discuss trump's Muslim ban or the XO in yer post.

The poster you accused of not discussing the OP did so throughout his post in discussing the XO.

Try discussing the white nationalists Bannon and Miller controlling dear leader's brain .
 
Absentglare said:
Your dishonest excuse is irrelevant.

"A bit of background: soon after the December 2015 terror attack in San Bernadino, President Obama signed an amendment to the Visa Waiver Program, a law that allows citizens of 38 countries to travel to the United States without obtaining visas (and gives Americans reciprocal privileges in those countries). The amendment removed from the Visa Waiver Program dual nationals who were citizens of four countries (Iraq, Iran, Sudan, and Syria), or anyone who had recently traveled to those countries. The Obama administration added three more to the list (Libya, Somalia, and Yemen), bringing the total to seven. But this law did not bar anyone from coming to the United States. It only required a relatively small percentage of people to obtain a visa first. "

https://www.google.com/amp/foreignp...ar-to-your-immigration-ban/amp/?client=safari
Click to expand...

You say I am being dishonest, then follow it up with confirmation of what I stated! Good Job! All I stated was that these countries came from a list formed in 2015 by Congress and Obama. Completely true. It's also reasonable. If they were not able to participate in a waiver program because of their actions or intentions, then it would seem the logical 1st place to start when banning travel from places.
 
NIMBY said:
The only posters who don't want to discuss the thread content of a trump ****up are trumpistani deflectors like you.

At zero time did you discuss trump's Muslim ban or the XO in yer post.

The poster you accused of not discussing the OP did so throughout his post in discussing the XO.

Try discussing the white nationalists Bannon and Miller controlling dear leader's brain .
Click to expand...

You've gotta get that shiny side of the tinfoil on the outside. It's doing you NO good on the inside....
 
Last edited:
NIMBY said:
Of course you know that trump has no business ties in these 7 nations.

Good for you to point out that the 7 came from CONGRESS, as well as trump hiding behind Obama.

I also agree with yer characterization of trump as a fascist in squashing any dissent.
Click to expand...
How do you know he doesn't have business ties there?

NIMBY said:
He hired the alt-right's two best white nationalists in Bannon and Miller, don't you think ?
Click to expand...
Maybe but not for this thread. Start another if you want to discuss.
 
MaggieD said:
The POTUS did not ban Muslims. That is the truth. And that was the purpose of this thread. And because you know that is RIGHT? You are attacking the messenger.
Click to expand...

Yes, Maggie....the POTUS did ban Muslims. But he did say that Christians were welcome.

"Washington (CNN)President Donald Trump said in a new interview Friday that persecuted Christians will be given priority over other refugees seeking to enter the United States, saying they have been "horribly treated."

Trump says US will prioritize Christian refugees - CNNPolitics.com​


Trump is going to have a difficult time proving that his Muslim ban isn't based on religion....and his personal business interests.
 
CriticalThought said:
The OP is arguing that someone, somewhere has suggested that Trump's ban is a complete and permanent ban on all Muslims. She asks that this mystery person be honest about the situation. As it stands I can't find this person because when most people use the words "Muslim ban" they are not using it the way she thinks they are. Those words refer to people from 7 Muslim Majority countries who have been denied entry into the U.S. for 90-120 days and the choice to give Christian folk from those countries preference after that time. So the OP has misconstrued how most people are using those words and taken it as dishonesty because she reads more into it.
Click to expand...

Trump on latest iteration of Muslim ban: 'You could say it's an expansion' - CNNPolitics.com
Trump's Muslim ban is a dangerous distraction | | Al Jazeera
With Impending Muslim Ban, Trump to Turn Hate Into Policy - The Daily Beast
Trump's Muslim ban excludes countries linked to his businesses - NY Daily News
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...n-not-rolling-it-back/?utm_term=.09ce365ae22a
https://sethfrantzman.com/2017/01/28/obamas-admi

There are dozens more.

If this isn't enough for you to accept the media is misleading people and people are believing the headlines, just skip over the thread and consider it a straw man. I could not care less. Very clever distraction, however.

Edit . . . Ez grab. Check out Post 97.
 
Phoenix said:
You say I am being dishonest, then follow it up with confirmation of what I stated! Good Job! All I stated was that these countries came from a list formed in 2015 by Congress and Obama. Completely true. It's also reasonable. If they were not able to participate in a waiver program because of their actions or intentions, then it would seem the logical 1st place to start when banning travel from places.
Click to expand...

No, actually, apparently you don't understand what i said.

I said this action against those countries did NOT come from President Obama's advisement. In fact; they are completely different. President Obama simply exempted these countries from the visa waiver. There was no indication whatsoever that President Obama intended to mark these countries as worthy of a ban.

President Trump's executive order did not "come from" President Obama's policies. You are confusing origin with equivalence.
 
roughdraft274 said:
Yet they thought it was a good idea to vote for the retard in chief in the first place.
Click to expand...

British parliament taking up petition to disinvite trump.

British conservative leader May under intense criticism for her visit to the USA, including from her own party.

GOPs spent over 40 years going after Hillary since the Watergate hearings.

Democrats are only just beginning to realize how far behind they are in government and politics.

trump chastising Schumer over his tears and DEMs taking the high road just doesn't work .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom