In response to other threads thinking it's too fast to talk about anything

[Boo Radley]

It was a travel ban, though, not a refugee ban. And quite obviously not a Muslim ban.

No, it is a Muslim ban. Again, if they were Christian, there would be no ban. Trump has often used that phrase himself.

 

[Boo Radley]

I missed nothing. This is just another worthless TDS bait thread.

I think you have. I'm trying to be polite.

 

[Boo Radley]

What do you think the problem is?

With the Skittle analogy? We can use it on any population, like white males. We know one will kill, but not which one. So let's get rid of them. Work it through.

As for the topic, we will hear calls not to even talk about guns in this country after the tragedy, but there are no calls not to talk about Muslims and the like when they are involved in the few cases they are involved in. I'm saying what is good for one, is good for the other. We can talk about it.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Actually blacks and Muslims DO fear white Christians and for good reason.

Which has, exactly, what to do with having a fear of one's own kind?

 

[MaggieD]

No, it is a Muslim ban. Again, if they were Christian, there would be no ban. Trump has often used that phrase himself.

I’m not going derail this thread, but don’t take that as agreement.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

With the Skittle analogy? We can use it on any population, like white males. We know one will kill, but not which one. So let's get rid of them. Work it through.

As for the topic, we will hear calls not to even talk about guns in this country after the tragedy, but there are no calls not to talk about Muslims and the like when they are involved in the few cases they are involved in. I'm saying what is good for one, is good for the other. We can talk about it.

You posted this:

Another shooting that the Muslim Ban had no effect on. Like McVey and others, this is home grown. Do we use the skittle theory here? Can we talk about possible solutions? Or is it wrong to do so, unless its done by a Muslim or a minority? I'm open folks. I've been praying, but think we really should at least try to address the problem. Am I wrong?

I want to know what problem we are trying to address.

 

[Boo Radley]

I’m not going derail this thread, but don’t take that as agreement.

Never thought it was. But trump's words:

While campaigning for president days after a terrorist attack in San Bernardino, Calif., Donald Trump called for "a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what the hell is going on."

 

[Boo Radley]

You posted this:





I want to know what problem we are trying to address.

Shootings in America. We kill a lot of people. But I addressed that above.

 

[AlbqOwl]

Actually, that is the intent. It's moronic in its logic, as the threat comes from countries not on the list. But call whatever makes you feel better, the point is, that's not the problem. Try and see if you can get the point. so far you've missed it.

No it doesn't miss the point. President Trump was not the first to initiate a travel ban in the interest of national security and he targeted only those nations identified by the Obama Administration as primary exporters of terrorism. There was no ban on travel from a huge majority of Muslim nations so there is absolutely zero case to be made that it was a "Muslim travel ban."

Further ". . .in 1972, in Kleindienst v. Mandel, the Supreme Court held that when the executive branch makes a decision to exclude an alien “on the basis of a facially legitimate and bona fide reason,” courts may “neither look behind the exercise of that discretion, nor test it by balancing its justification against the constitutional interests of citizens the visa denial might implicate.” The court reiterated this conclusion just two years ago in Kerry v. Din. . ." (quoted from USA Today)

And the history of it all is quite broad. This article only touches on that history in the 20th Century:
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/03/22/tru...rsial-but-look-at-these-immigration-bans.html

The past six Presidents, with the exception of G.H.W. Bush, have used existing Presidential authority to restrict or ban travel visas or immigration from certain countries.
Past Six Presidents Have Blocked Classes Of I | The Daily Caller

So with the presence of probability of a massive influx of undocumented refugees, at least some of whom would be terrorists pretending to be refugees, President Trump was not only prudent but within his scope of duties in the interest of national security to issue the TEMPORARY ban that he did.

Such travel bans do not stop home grown terrorists like the Unabomber, Timothy McVeigh, the carnage of the mob wars, and tragedies such as Orlando, Columbine, Sandy Hook, et al, with the most recent being Las Vegas.

But if they stop some terrorists from getting here so easily, why would you object to that?

 

[faithful_servant]

I think you have. I'm trying to be polite.

No, you're engaging in sad little exercise in passive/aggressive behavior. There was no courtesy in your post, just a pathetic attempt at using lies to try to make this event the fault of the President.

 

[Boo Radley]

No it doesn't miss the point. President Trump was not the first to initiate a travel ban in the interest of national security and he targeted only those nations identified by the Obama Administration as primary exporters of terrorism. There was no ban on travel from a huge majority of Muslim nations so there is absolutely zero case to be made that it was a "Muslim travel ban."

Further ". . .in 1972, in Kleindienst v. Mandel, the Supreme Court held that when the executive branch makes a decision to exclude an alien “on the basis of a facially legitimate and bona fide reason,” courts may “neither look behind the exercise of that discretion, nor test it by balancing its justification against the constitutional interests of citizens the visa denial might implicate.” The court reiterated this conclusion just two years ago in Kerry v. Din. . ." (quoted from USA Today)

And the history of it all is quite broad. This article only touches on that history in the 20th Century:
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/03/22/tru...rsial-but-look-at-these-immigration-bans.html

The past six Presidents, with the exception of G.H.W. Bush, have used existing Presidential authority to restrict or ban travel visas or immigration from certain countries.
Past Six Presidents Have Blocked Classes Of I | The Daily Caller

So with the presence of probability of a massive influx of undocumented refugees, at least some of whom would be terrorists pretending to be refugees, President Trump was not only prudent but within his scope of duties in the interest of national security to issue the TEMPORARY ban that he did.

Such travel bans do not stop home grown terrorists like the Unabomber, Timothy McVeigh, the carnage of the mob wars, and tragedies such as Orlando, Columbine, Sandy Hook, et al, with the most recent being Las Vegas.

But if they stop some terrorists from getting here so easily, why would you object to that?

No, he noted that they were dangerous, but never listed them as the most dangerous or primary. Nor did he suggest the need for a ban, but for a more thoughtful look at the methods of arrival.

And refugees do get "documented". Always have. Those who have come here as terrorist from countries not on the ban did so with regular visas and not by way of the refugee process. The Daily Caller aside, there are differences in what those presidents did and this one. We are not at war with most of the countries on the ban, nor did we ban those who aided us in countries we were at war with. Failure to make proper distinctions is the same as lying.

 

[danarhea]

So much wrong with your thinking.

There has never been a "Muslim Ban". There is a ban on nations that support terrorism. No one ever said that this ban would stop all attacks like this.

Funny how Saudi Arabia is not on the list, even though the 911 hijackers came from there.

 

[Boo Radley]

No, you're engaging in sad little exercise in passive/aggressive behavior. There was no courtesy in your post, just a pathetic attempt at using lies to try to make this event the fault of the President.

Well, I'm not discussing this president. If anything, the logic of those who supported him. That I may be doing. This President is writing his own terrible history. But if we don't learn to reason better, we'll repeat this disaster again and again. The reasoning needs to be challenged, often. And we can't say we won't talk about guns after a tragedy, but spout off against a religion whenever there is anything remotely linked to it. Logic has rules, as does hypocrisy.

 

[Jack Hays]

So much wrong with your thinking.

There has never been a "Muslim Ban". There is a ban on nations that support terrorism. No one ever said that this ban would stop all attacks like this.

Nope, Obama didn't ban any one. Obama only restricted how they could enter. It's another attempt to muddy the water to the point of being inaccurate.

I did not say Obama banned anyone. But the list of countries where visa applicants could not be adequately vetted was drawn up during the Obama administration.

 

[Boo Radley]

I did not say Obama banned anyone. But the list of countries where visa applicants could not be adequately vetted was drawn up during the Obama administration.

Which is no importance. It's not the list. It's the logic of the ban. So, he didn't have the gumption to make his own list? As that list wasn't to ban, he merely applied it to another situation without seeing if the new logic fit. Trying to fix a few procedural problems is different than a ban. As it is different, you have to see if the ban applies. This is a new situation.

 

[AlbqOwl]

No, he noted that they were dangerous, but never listed them as the most dangerous or primary. Nor did he suggest the need for a ban, but for a more thoughtful look at the methods of arrival.

And refugees do get "documented". Always have. Those who have come here as terrorist from countries not on the ban did so with regular visas and not by way of the refugee process. The Daily Caller aside, there are differences in what those presidents did and this one. We are not at war with most of the countries on the ban, nor did we ban those who aided us in countries we were at war with. Failure to make proper distinctions is the same as lying.

Even Obama's security people admitted we had no means or methods to vet incoming refugees from Syria etc. And because Obama did use his executive powers to ban so many, the only reason he refused to do so re immigrants from those nations identified as dangerous is most likely because they ARE Muslim. But even he revoked VISA free travel from the same countries involved in President Trump's order and he did it for national security reasons--something the mainstream media pretty much refuses to acknowledge:

Beginning in January 2016, travelers from Iran, Iraq, Sudan and Syria were blocked from entering the United States under the Visa Waiver Program, which allows foreign citizens to travel to the United States for up to 90 days without obtaining a visa. Libya, Somalia and Yemen were added soon after due to "the growing threat from foreign terrorist fighters."

Despite the restrictions under Obama's policy, people were still able to apply for a visa using the regular immigration process, a right not afforded by Trump's executive order, which bans travel from the countries for 90 days, among other restrictions.​

President Trump's travel ban differs from Obama's 2011 policy - NY Daily News

 

[Jack Hays]

Which is no importance. It's not the list. It's the logic of the ban. So, he didn't have the gumption to make his own list? As that list wasn't to ban, he merely applied it to another situation without seeing if the new logic fit. Trying to fix a few procedural problems is different than a ban. As it is different, you have to see if the ban applies. This is a new situation.

I stopped caring about this issue long ago, but the fact remains the original list was compiled under Obama. My point was that the "ban" was neither against Muslims nor against alleged terrorist states, but rather against countries where visa applicants could not be adequately vetted.

 

[Boo Radley]

Even Obama's security people admitted we had no means or methods to vet incoming refugees from Syria etc. And because Obama did use his executive powers to ban so many, the only reason he refused to do so re immigrants from those nations identified as dangerous is most likely because they ARE Muslim. But even he revoked VISA free travel from the same countries involved in President Trump's order and he did it for national security reasons--something the mainstream media pretty much refuses to acknowledge:

Beginning in January 2016, travelers from Iran, Iraq, Sudan and Syria were blocked from entering the United States under the Visa Waiver Program, which allows foreign citizens to travel to the United States for up to 90 days without obtaining a visa. Libya, Somalia and Yemen were added soon after due to "the growing threat from foreign terrorist fighters."

Despite the restrictions under Obama's policy, people were still able to apply for a visa using the regular immigration process, a right not afforded by Trump's executive order, which bans travel from the countries for 90 days, among other restrictions.​

President Trump's travel ban differs from Obama's 2011 policy - NY Daily News

That is not what they admitted. We have had vetting processes. They offer no promise of never, but the fact is the process takes and took far too long to be a useful method to terrorist. And while he stop regular visas from those countries, which had not produced anyone here, the countries that have produced terrorist over here were left un-banned. So, it's more show than effective policy.

 

[FastPace]

Another shooting that the Muslim Ban had no effect on. Like McVey and others, this is home grown. Do we use the skittle theory here? Can we talk about possible solutions? Or is it wrong to do so, unless its done by a Muslim or a minority? I'm open folks. I've been praying, but think we really should at least try to address the problem. Am I wrong?

No, you are not wrong.

But what if the problem is not what you think it is?

 

[FastPace]

White Christians don't want to acknowledge that their biggest threat is their own kind.

Was this guy Christian? The Boston bombers were both white. What religion did they subscribe too? And how do you know a white American is not agnostic, atheist, just "spiritual," pagan and so on?

 

[FastPace]

I'm still going to be waiting to see how many days it takes before American politicians start blaming Putin and Russia for this. Apparently, they tried to blame Putin and Russia for the NFL National Anthem protesting controversy :lol:. I think this would be the perfect time for the Clintonians and Eddie Munster Paul Ryan to tie the Kremlin (and Putin directly) to the NRA.

 

[FieldTheorist]

So the TDS bait got thrown out and the TDS feeding frenzy begins....

In other words, you interject some garbage nonsense in defense of Trump, I point out that it's nonsense garbage, and you think I'm the one who is deranged? Yeah, cool story, bro.

 

[Jack Hays]

Yeah, that's why Trump only tried to ban people from countries that haven't committed terrorism in the US. It's a super, super successful tactic. Really intellectually gifted, our president.

The ban was focused on countries where visa applicants could not be credibly vetted.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

Shootings in America. We kill a lot of people. But I addressed that above.

Actually we don't. If you are not a criminal you are about as likely to be involved in a shooting as a person in the UK. The issue is one of culture, education, within the affected communities. Not taking guns away from law abiding citizens,.

 

[AlbqOwl]

That is not what they admitted. We have had vetting processes. They offer no promise of never, but the fact is the process takes and took far too long to be a useful method to terrorist. And while he stop regular visas from those countries, which had not produced anyone here, the countries that have produced terrorist over here were left un-banned. So, it's more show than effective policy.

There is little logic in asserting that just because something has been done is what should be done. Or that because that is the way it was before, that is the way it is now.
https://www.numbersusa.com/news/fbi-says-there-no-way-vet-incoming-syrian-refugees