Was the Muslim ban really intended to be temporary?

Risky Thicket said:

I don't live nor do I vote in Japan or Israel. What they do is up to them.

Click to expand...

Of course. The US, which was just a few decades ago 90% white, and is now 60% white, and is 15% foreign born, needs to be more diverse. Israel and Japan, which are basically pure ethnostates, who cares, right? Interesting double standard that you have there.

tres borrachos said:

I've been waiting for that too. So far, nothing. The two countries whose citizens have a history of attacks on Americans on our soil, and strangely enough, they don't make the list, which actually includes countries with zero history of attacks on Americans on our soil.

But the citizens of Trump nation will continue to blindly support the reality TV star they're all so infatuated with.

Click to expand...

You've had an explanation since the day it was signed. Those countries can produce passports for their citizens. The countries on the list cannot.

Kal'Stang said:

Being a terrible President =/= incompetent President. What you're attempting to do is broad brush in order to dismiss the fact that the list came from the Obama Admin and that it was that list that was used. No other reason that might feed into Trump is bad mantra.

Again, if you want to know why certain countries were not on that list then you need to ask Obama or those that came up with the list in the first place. It is quite reasonable for a newly incoming President to use what the previous President came up with, at least until the new President can conduct their own investigation. Time does not stop and start new when a new President comes into power. There hasn't been a single President that's ever been elected that hasn't used info from the previous Administration to enact policies. Even when that previous administration was completely at odds with the new one.

Click to expand...

Obama isn't President anymore. Trump has done everything from proposing a ban on Muslims entering the country to saying he knows more about ISIS than the generals do. Copying what Obama did, which Trump himself said was a failed policy, contradicts his claims. Obviously he was lying his brains out while campaigning.

KevinKohler said:

What Muslim ban? Citation of said Muslim ban is needed.

Click to expand...

Go read the court decisions. They cite all the Trump statements and campaign documents calling it a "Muslim Ban", as well as all the statements about how the EO accomplished what he'd talked about while campaigning which was, in case you are inclined to forget, a Muslim Ban.

Or are you prepared to repeat the stupid lie that Trump fed supporters for just that purpose - that everything he said about what he was going to order and everything said about what he did order doesn't matter as long as his aides remembered to omit the specific words "muslim ban" from the order itself? Your post sure sounds like that's what you're prepared to parrot.

Fortunately, courts are not required to buy stupid bull****. They naturally look to everything Trump said before and after the order to measure the intent of the order, in addition to its practical effects.







Trumpian bull**** may fly high and proud when the choir trades it in banter, but there's no requirement that courts listen.

:shrug:

Greenbeard said:

There shouldn't be any need for a ban at this point. Unless, of course, it was never intended to be temporary anyway and the rationale for it was just a smokescreen.

Click to expand...

I sure as hell HOPE it wasn't intended to be temporary.

That would be stupid.

Once the Supreme Court overrules the pathetic lower ultra liberal courts........things can begin to work correctly.

:2usflag:

tres borrachos said:

That isn't a reason.

Click to expand...

So because you disagree with whatever analysis was done to deem those countries as those of "serious concern", it's "not a reason"? Are you of an opinion that the Obama Administration just pulled those countries names out of their ass, and the Trump administration just accepted it? If so, I can see your disliking of the list. However, just because you may feel that's how it happened, doesn't make it fact. The far more likely manner in which those countries were selected was because actual facts regarding terrorist chatter and threat assessments by the intelligence community had those countries rise to the level that they qualified for whatever metric was needed to be added to the list. That's, generally, how these kind of things would work within the government.

You can be bothered by the methodology. You can be upset with the conclusion. However, to act that the government determining that certain areas are a more serious threat is somehow not a "reason" is asinine and illogical.

Why were those other countries not on the list? I honestly don't know, I don't have that intel or the insight into it. All I know is they were not added to the list under Obama OR Trump. As such, I find it extremely difficult to just default to the assumption that the nefarious reasons for their exclusion under Trump, which is so often presented, is the reason they're not included now as opposed to the notion that the intelligence community simply didn't deem those additional countries a serious enough threat to be added.

phattonez said:

You've had an explanation since the day it was signed. Those countries can produce passports for their citizens. The countries on the list cannot.

Click to expand...

I guess that explains why we've had so many attacks on Americans on our soil by Yemeni immigrants, and none by Saudi or Paki immigrants.

Zyphlin said:

So because you disagree with whatever analysis was done to deem those countries as those of "serious concern", it's "not a reason"? Are you of an opinion that the Obama Administration just pulled those countries names out of their ass, and the Trump administration just accepted it? If so, I can see your disliking of the list. However, just because you may feel that's how it happened, doesn't make it fact. The far more likely manner in which those countries were selected was because actual facts regarding terrorist chatter and threat assessments by the intelligence community had those countries rise to the level that they qualified for whatever metric was needed to be added to the list. That's, generally, how these kind of things would work within the government.

You can be bothered by the methodology. You can be upset with the conclusion. However, to act that the government determining that certain areas are a more serious threat is somehow not a "reason" is asinine and illogical.

Why were those other countries not on the list? I honestly don't know, I don't have that intel or the insight into it. All I know is they were not added to the list under Obama OR Trump. As such, I find it extremely difficult to just default to the assumption that the nefarious reasons for their exclusion under Trump, which is so often presented, is the reason they're not included now as opposed to the notion that the intelligence community simply didn't deem those additional countries a serious enough threat to be added.

Click to expand...

If you're saying that Obama did a good job managing immigration in this country, you should tell President Trump that. He said the opposite.

tres borrachos said:

I guess that explains why we've had so many attacks on Americans on our soil by Yemeni immigrants, and none by Saudi or Paki immigrants.

Click to expand...

This is beside the point. Why are we letting people into this country when we can't do any kind of background check on them?

tres borrachos said:

Obama isn't President anymore. Trump has done everything from proposing a ban on Muslims entering the country to saying he knows more about ISIS than the generals do. Copying what Obama did, which Trump himself said was a failed policy, contradicts his claims. Obviously he was lying his brains out while campaigning.

Click to expand...

Irrelevant to your question. You asked why those countries were not targeted in Trump's EO. You got the answer. Because the countries that were targeted were on a list composed by the Obama admin as nations which were of concern for where terrorists may come to the US from.

And just because Obama is no longer President does not mean that the info that was gathered under his Admin is no longer relevant. Like I said, time does not stop and start new when a new President comes into power.

Kal'Stang said:

Irrelevant to your question. You asked why those countries were not targeted in Trump's EO. You got the answer. Because the countries that were targeted were on a list composed by the Obama admin as nations which were of concern for where terrorists may come to the US from.

And just because Obama is no longer President does not mean that the info that was gathered under his Admin is no longer relevant. Like I said, time does not stop and start new when a new President comes into power.

Click to expand...

Yes, I got the answer. "Because Obama said so". In other words, Trump is simply following Obama's lead. He lied when he said he knew more than the generals, and he lied when he said Obama was doing a terrible job, unless it's his intent to just keep advancing the terrible policies of his predecessor.

In other words, Trump is a failure when it comes to this issue already. Or Obama was a genius.

Mr Person said:

Go read the court decisions.

Click to expand...

The court decisions are seriously flawed, in part for the same reason you brush aside here. If you're going to use his claims during the campaign, then ALL of them should be used contextually, which would show he backed away from a "muslim ban" once being advised heavily such a thing would be unconstitutional.

I watch a guy hits my car as he pulls into the parking lot of the restaurant I'm in. I watch him not leave a note and simply walk in, acting as if nothing happened. I tell my friend "I want to hurt that guy so ****ing much, he hit my car. I should go punch him in the face". My friend tells me "It's not worth it, he'd probably have you arrested for battery. I know what you REALLY want is to punish him for hitting your car, so take his license plate and report him to the police as a hit and run and have your insurance go after him". I take my friends advice, and the guy ends up arrested and paying a fair bit out of pocket to me.

While my initial STATED desire was illegal, the reality of what I ACTUALLY wanted was laid bare to me once I talked with my friend, and ultimately found another way to hurt him that was legal. That doesn't mean you could describe what eventually happened as me "punching him in the face" simply because that's what I originally CLAIMED that I wanted to do to.

Trump wanted to institute a Muslim ban. Upon further talk with his advisers, he was made a believer that such a thing would be unconstitutional and had his intent clarified as wanting to prevent people he sees as highly dangerous from entering into the country. As such, they went about finding a legal way of attaining what he actually desired. Simply because he originally was clamoring for a "muslim ban" doesn't magically change the reality of what actually happened. Such absurdity is a travesty of the law.

tres borrachos said:

If you're saying that Obama did a good job managing immigration in this country, you should tell President Trump that. He said the opposite.

Click to expand...

Rather than relying on the fall back of "attack Trump", how about addressing what I ACTUALLY SAID?

First, since you apparently are severely lacking an understanding of scope, agreeing or disagreeing on one particular aspect of policy regarding something as broad as immigration is not the same as agreeing with the overall notion.

Second, this is not simply a matter of ones opinion on immigration policy, but of trust within the intelligence / national defense security which is the foundation of where such a list most likely was crafted.

Third, whether Trump stated his dislike of Obama's immigration policy or not is, ultimately, irrelevant to me as to whether or not the reasons for the countries on this list are potentially legitimate in nature.

Now, would you like to address the actual CONTENT of my post regarding why "the government determined that these are the countries of 'serious concern'" is "a reason", even if it's a reason based on a conclusion you disagree with?

Greenbeard said:

At the time it was introduced, defenders of the ban insisted it was just a temporary measure. The argument was that the administration needed 90 days to review and/or improve vetting policy and procedures, after which the ban would be lifted.

Trump himself indicated as much:


And while the courts blocked the actual ban (specifically sections 3(c), 5(a), 5(b), 5(c), and 5(e) of the EO) from taking effect, I'm not aware of any court blocking sections 3(a) and 3(b)--ostensibly the rationale for the ban--from proceeding. In other words, there's been nothing preventing Homeland Security from completing its charge to "immediately conduct a review to determine the information needed from any country to adjudicate any visa, admission, or other benefit under the INA (adjudications) in order to determine that the individual seeking the benefit is who the individual claims to be and is not a security or public-safety threat."

Given that the 90 day window they supposedly needed to review those vetting procedures and implement any improvements lapsed last week (and, indeed, the report on DHS's review of the vetting procedures was due over 60 days ago), why is this matter still tying up judicial resources? Surely this was a top priority for the administration and was completed on time.

There shouldn't be any need for a ban at this point. Unless, of course, it was never intended to be temporary anyway and the rationale for it was just a smokescreen.

Click to expand...

7 countries out of the 50 Muslim majority countries is not a Muslim ban.Nor did the temporary ban on those 6 to 7 countries specify Muslims.

tres borrachos said:

In other words, Trump is a failure when it comes to this issue already. Or Obama was a genius.

Click to expand...

Whether Trump lied or Trump's an idiot is ultimately IRRELEVANT to what was being asked here. Which was "A reasonable explanation for why Saudi Arabia and Pakistan were never included".

Stating "They were not included because the government determined they were not a 'serious concern'" is a reasonable explanation. It may be a conclusion you disagree with, but that is ABSOLUTELY a reasonable explanation which was originally asked for.

Whether or not that explanation makes Trump look stupid is IRRELEVANT to whether it's reasonable. Whether or not that explanation matches up with Trumps idiotic outlandish statements during the campaign is IRRELEVANT to whether it's reasonable. Your continued attempt to veer away from the actual question and just go into attack and belittle mode regarding Trump does not change that, and simply highlights the reality that you don't actually CARE if there is or is not a reasonable explanation, you are just focused singularly on an instance where you can attack Trump.

So far your only argument for why it's not a "reasonable explanation" is essentially "Trump said stupid negative things about Obama". Well, fine. Are you suggesting you AGREE with Trumps stupid comments, and THAT'S why you don't think it's a "reasonable explanation"? Because otherwise, the fact he said stupid things about Obama doesn't actually negate the notion that it's reasonable to base this off the recommendations made by your agencies.

Zyphlin said:

Rather than relying on the fall back of "attack Trump", how about addressing what I ACTUALLY SAID?

First, since you apparently are severely lacking an understanding of scope, agreeing or disagreeing on one particular aspect of policy regarding something as broad as immigration is not the same as agreeing with the overall notion.

Second, this is not simply a matter of ones opinion on immigration policy, but of trust within the intelligence / national defense security which is the foundation of where such a list most likely was crafted.

Third, whether Trump stated his dislike of Obama's immigration policy or not is, ultimately, irrelevant to me as to whether or not the reasons for the countries on this list are potentially legitimate in nature.

Now, would you like to address the actual CONTENT of my post regarding why "the government determined that these are the countries of 'serious concern'" is "a reason", even if it's a reason based on a conclusion you disagree with?

Click to expand...

Where did I tell you to attack Trump?

I did address the content of your post. And unlike you, I would like to see the countries with a history of actually attacking us be put on a list, not ones with no history of attacking us. And unlike you (and apparently President Trump), I don't decide the validity of something based on what Barack Obama thought. I base my opinion on the validity of something on historical data. There is no history of citizens of the countries on the EO attacking us. There is a history of countries not on the EO attacking us.

I didn't realize this would be so hard for some of you Trump supporters to understand.

Zyphlin said:

Whether Trump lied or Trump's an idiot is ultimately IRRELEVANT to what was being asked here. Which was "A reasonable explanation for why Saudi Arabia and Pakistan were never included".

Stating "They were not included because the government determined they were not a 'serious concern'" is a reasonable explanation. It may be a conclusion you disagree with, but that is ABSOLUTELY a reasonable explanation which was originally asked for.

Whether or not that explanation makes Trump look stupid is IRRELEVANT to whether it's reasonable. Whether or not that explanation matches up with Trumps idiotic outlandish statements during the campaign is IRRELEVANT to whether it's reasonable. Your continued attempt to veer away from the actual question and just go into attack and belittle mode regarding Trump does not change that, and simply highlights the reality that you don't actually CARE if there is or is not a reasonable explanation, you are just focused singularly on an instance where you can attack Trump.

Click to expand...

Where in that post did I call trump an idiot?

Can you possibly be more dishonest in your posts? And stop with the melodramatic highlighting of words? i feel like I'm having an obnoxious teacher wag his finger at me.

tres borrachos said:

Yes, I got the answer. "Because Obama said so". In other words, Trump is simply following Obama's lead. He lied when he said he knew more than the generals, and he lied when he said Obama was doing a terrible job, unless it's his intent to just keep advancing the terrible policies of his predecessor.

In other words, Trump is a failure when it comes to this issue already. Or Obama was a genius.

Click to expand...

Funny how you came up with that conclusion. Since it was the Obama admin that came up with that list, and you obviously disagree with that list and believe that certain other countries should have been added to it, wouldn't that indicate that the Obama Admin did a terrible job and messed up with that list, at least to you considering what you have said so far? Which would mean all that Trump is guilty of is trusting that it was a list properly composed. But even then that would fail since he added a clause to the EO that said that the list of countries named was not absolute and that some may be taken off and other countries added later as further investigation and events revealed more info.

Plain fact of the matter is that what Zyph said is correct. The intelligence community, which composed that list, had reasons. What those reasons are we do not know. Which is why I said you should ask the Obama Admin or Obama himself for the reason why certain countries were not on that list. Trying to pin it on Trump is nothing more than a partisan attempt to make Trump look worse that he already does. Which by itself is bad enough. Why add imaginary reasons to it?

Can't have a discussion over something that didn't happen. How can you discuss the intent of something that was never even put up for consideration?

Kal'Stang said:

Funny how you came up with that conclusion. Since it was the Obama admin that came up with that list, and you obviously disagree with that list and believe that certain other countries should have been added to it, wouldn't that indicate that the Obama Admin did a terrible job and messed up with that list, at least to you considering what you have said so far? Which would mean all that Trump is guilty of is trusting that it was a list properly composed. But even then that would fail since he added a clause to the EO that said that the list of countries named was not absolute and that some may be taken off and other countries added later as further investigation and events revealed more info.

Plain fact of the matter is that what Zyph said is correct. The intelligence community, which composed that list, had reasons. What those reasons are we do not know. Which is why I said you should ask the Obama Admin or Obama himself for the reason why certain countries were not on that list. Trying to pin it on Trump is nothing more than a partisan attempt to make Trump look worse that he already does. Which by itself is bad enough. Why add imaginary reasons to it?

Click to expand...

I do disagree with the list. It doesn't contain the names of the countries whose citizens attacked us, and does contain the names of countries whose citizens didn't attack us.

Obama isn't President anymore, Kal. Obama is. I don't have to ask Obama anything. He's a former President. I thought the discussion was about Trump and his EO, or did I miss something? Is the thread to mull over the actions of the former President?

Mr Person said:

Go read the court decisions. They cite all the Trump statements and campaign documents calling it a "Muslim Ban", as well as all the statements about how the EO accomplished what he'd talked about while campaigning which was, in case you are inclined to forget, a Muslim Ban.

Or are you prepared to repeat the stupid lie that Trump fed supporters for just that purpose - that everything he said about what he was going to order and everything said about what he did order doesn't matter as long as his aides remembered to omit the specific words "muslim ban" from the order itself? Your post sure sounds like that's what you're prepared to parrot.

Fortunately, courts are not required to buy stupid bull****. They naturally look to everything Trump said before and after the order to measure the intent of the order, in addition to its practical effects.

Trumpian bull**** may fly high and proud when the choir trades it in banter, but there's no requirement that courts listen.

:shrug:

Click to expand...

Zyphlin said:

The court decisions are seriously flawed, in part for the same reason you brush aside here. If you're going to use his claims during the campaign, then ALL of them should be used contextually, which would show he backed away from a "muslim ban" once being advised heavily such a thing would be unconstitutional.

I watch a guy hits my car as he pulls into the parking lot of the restaurant I'm in. I watch him not leave a note and simply walk in, acting as if nothing happened. I tell my friend "I want to hurt that guy so ****ing much, he hit my car. I should go punch him in the face". My friend tells me "It's not worth it, he'd probably have you arrested for battery. I know what you REALLY want is to punish him for hitting your car, so take his license plate and report him to the police as a hit and run and have your insurance go after him". I take my friends advice, and the guy ends up arrested and paying a fair bit out of pocket to me.

While my initial STATED desire was illegal, the reality of what I ACTUALLY wanted was laid bare to me once I talked with my friend, and ultimately found another way to hurt him that was legal. That doesn't mean you could describe what eventually happened as me "punching him in the face" simply because that's what I originally CLAIMED that I wanted to do to.

Click to expand...

Whaaaaaat?

Your attempted analogy is useless. The legal reasoning that goes into determining the intent of an EO or of a piece of legislation has nothing to do with it. That's just not how legal reasoning works. Not at all.

Zyphlin said:

Trump wanted to institute a Muslim ban. Upon further talk with his advisers, he was made a believer that such a thing would be unconstitutional and had his intent clarified as wanting to prevent people he sees as highly dangerous from entering into the country. As such, they went about finding a legal way of attaining what he actually desired. Simply because he originally was clamoring for a "muslim ban" doesn't magically change the reality of what actually happened. Such absurdity is a travesty of the law.

Click to expand...

Not true.

He was not made a believer. He told them to draft it in a way they thought that it would get through court. He did not tell them to avoid it being a "muslim ban." He just told them to try to pass it off in a way that looked like it would be OK. He bragged that his first order would do what he talked about on the trail. After that was shot down, he was careless enough to brag that the second one would do what the first one did. Naturally, the court paid attention.

Courts aren't stupid, and unlike internet posters they actually have a legal education and legal experience. You'd probably send an appellate panel cross-eyed if you tried arguing that your analogy shows their entire method of measuring intent is wrong.

tres borrachos said:

Where did I tell you to attack Trump?

Click to expand...

Pointless comment. I never suggested you told me or anyone to attack Trump

I did address the content of your post.

Click to expand...

No, you didn't. At all. You made an illogical non-sequitor about my views of Obama's immigration plan and Trumps comments.

And unlike you, I would like to see the countries with a history of actually attacking us be put on a list

Click to expand...

Again, evidence you clearly didn't actually bother to read my post.

No where did I offer up ANY personal opinion on the list of countries and whether I agree with them or not. Zero, zip, zilch.

Furthermore, as I already noted, disagreeing with the conclusions that led to the list of countries is not the same as disagreeing with that the process was reasonable. Things don't have to be EXACTLY as you like them to be for them to be "reasonable".

And unlike you (and apparently President Trump), I don't decide the validity of something based on what Barack Obama thought.

Click to expand...

Further evidence that you have not bothered to actually read my posts. Again, I did not indicate my feelings what so ever on the validity of the list based on what Barack Obama thought. I simply indicated that the Chief Executive making a decision based on conclusions made by an executive agency(s) is reasonable. Being reasonable is not the same thing as being something I'd approve or, like, or agree with.

I didn't realize this would be so hard for some of you Trump supporters to understand.

Click to expand...

Further evidence that you didn't read my post, nor have any desire for honest discourse and are simply focused on your dislike for Trump. Similar to my point regarding immigration policy, and similar to my point regarding your treatment of the notion of "reasonable", simply because someone isn't so mindlessly obsessed with attacking everything Trump does as you are does not make them a "Trump supporter". I did not vote for Trump, I never once on this forum advocated for a Trump presidency, I have routinely expressed disagreement with the Trump administration. Simply because I am not beating a negative drum in all instances without giving it any thought does not make me a "trump supporter".

Zyphlin said:

Pointless comment. I never suggested you told me or anyone to attack Trump



No, you didn't. At all. You made an illogical non-sequitor about my views of Obama's immigration plan and Trumps comments.



Again, evidence you clearly didn't actually bother to read my post.

No where did I offer up ANY personal opinion on the list of countries and whether I agree with them or not. Zero, zip, zilch.

Furthermore, as I already noted, disagreeing with the conclusions that led to the list of countries is not the same as disagreeing with that the process was reasonable. Things don't have to be EXACTLY as you like them to be for them to be "reasonable".



Further evidence that you have not bothered to actually read my posts. Again, I did not indicate my feelings what so ever on the validity of the list based on what Barack Obama thought. I simply indicated that the Chief Executive making a decision based on conclusions made by an executive agency(s) is reasonable. Being reasonable is not the same thing as being something I'd approve or, like, or agree with.



Further evidence that you didn't read my post, nor have any desire for honest discourse and are simply focused on your dislike for Trump. Similar to my point regarding immigration policy, and similar to my point regarding your treatment of the notion of "reasonable", simply because someone isn't so mindlessly obsessed with attacking everything Trump does as you are does not make them a "Trump supporter". I did not vote for Trump, I never once on this forum advocated for a Trump presidency, I have routinely expressed disagreement with the Trump administration. Simply because I am not beating a negative drum in all instances without giving it any thought does not make me a "trump supporter".

Click to expand...

You're the one who said something about attacking Trump, then you say you didn't say anything. You did. I wasn't posting about an attack on Trump, or attacking Trump. I'm talking about my opinion of the travel ban.

I'll read your posts when they're honest. Today they aren't, and they're also filled with whiny comments about me not liking Trump while you're concurrently whining about how you're not a Trump supporter.

This is boring. Your posts are too long under the best of circumstances.

tres borrachos said:

Where in that post did I call trump an idiot?

Click to expand...

Again, a diversionary comment on your part. Notice I did not state "You called Trump an idiot", nor did I use the word idiot in quotation marks indicating a quote. Trump being an idiot was my description of part of the overall tone of your argument. If you have such an issue with that, you're more than free to read that same sentence as "Whether Trump lied is ultimately irrelevant to what...". It makes no different or substantive change to the actual message.

Can you possibly be more dishonest in your posts?

Click to expand...

Absolutely, since I'm not being dishonest in my posts it's completely feasible for me to be more dishonest. For example, I could just keep diverting things into attacks and irrelevant allegations instead of actually addressing the true point.

And stop with the melodramatic highlighting of words?

Click to expand...

You know, like this, which has nothing to do with anything I've actually said and is just trying to distract by quibbling about font presentation.

So, again....care to address the actual content regarding the "reasonableness" of the "explanation" for why those countries were left off? Or are you going to bitch about my font, non-existent quotations of you, or some other irrelevant distraction?

tres borrachos said:

I do disagree with the list. It doesn't contain the names of the countries whose citizens attacked us, and does contain the names of countries whose citizens didn't attack us.

Click to expand...

Then you need to ask Obama or his Admin why that list doesn't contain those countries that you feel should be on there. Because that is the list that Trump used.

tres borrachos said:

Obama isn't President anymore, Kal. Obama is. I don't have to ask Obama anything. He's a former President. I thought the discussion was about Trump and his EO, or did I miss something? Is the thread to mull over the actions of the former President?

Click to expand...

The fact that Obama is no longer President does not invalidate that Trump used info from the Obama Admin. The fact that Obama is no longer President does not invalidate the fact that the info gathered while he was in office is still going to be used by a new administration. Regardless if it had been Hillary or Trump in office. That info would still be there and still be used by whoever was President.

Look, you wanted to know why those countries were not on that list. I'm telling you how to find out. Take it or leave it. Your choice. But to lay the blame on Trump for using info that was gathered by our intelligence community is wrong. Trump is not God. He doesn't know everything and it is quite reasonable for him to use info gathered by the intelligence community as a basis for policy making. Whether you agree or not. Trump has not done anything wrong in regards to the countries that were selected as those countries were selected based on the intelligence gathered by our intelligence community under the Obama admin. If you have a problem then you need to go to the source. Which was the Obama Admin.

I've got to go make some tea and toast for my wife who is sick now. TTYL.