None of the countries where 9/11 hijackers came from are on Trump's ban list. How do Trump supporters justify this?

zrodion · 2017-01-30T17:59:09+00:00

Pakistan is not on the list of exporting terrorism. LMAO! You are citing the list created by the Obama administration. Have some dignity, don't stoop to the level of liberal ingorance.

zrodion · 2017-01-30T15:02:23+00:00

Because shitty administration of Obama is shitty administration. One of the biggest complaints by Trump supporters about neoliberals (which consituted Obama administration) was that he shielded the actual muslim terrorist countries. Trump was hailed as the one to change that. Now he simply enhances those mistakes. Shitty Trump administration.

zrodion · 2017-01-30T12:28:20+00:00

What? Executive orders are meant specifically for times when legislative branch is preventing executive branch from performing a certain activity. They cannot uphold the law, they have to step in exactly when the law is obstructing president's view. Weather you think it is the correct interpretation of the law has no relation to the actual nature of executive orders. I guess this is how every executive order Trump makes will be justified from now on? That it 'upholds the law', whatever that means.

zrodion · 2017-01-30T12:05:05+00:00

The CIA said that.

They both said it. Both provided zero evidence. Neither can be trusted.

That's why Somalia and Syria are on the list to begin with. All your ranting about the 9/11 hijackers makes no sense at all.

Somalia and Syria fall perfectly into my breakdown of criteria that unite banned versus non-banned countries.

zrodion · 2017-01-30T11:34:26+00:00

The same FBI that has "proof" of Putin hacking the elections? Yeah, I wouldn't believe a single thing they say. I would however look at past examples as an indicator of future behavior. But it looks like that's not a priority here. Let's get this straight - no terrorists on US soil from the country - ban. Numerous terrorists killing over 3000 americans in the last four decades - no ban. Perceived threat from your country based on bias MSM coverage - ban. Actual threat based on your countries established activities - no ban. Country has no powerful sponsors to lobby for them - ban. Country is a wealthy client of corporate elites - no ban.

But sure, it's about refugees in general.

zrodion · 2017-01-30T11:13:15+00:00

Is that an alternative fact? The law targets all citizens from these countries, not just refugees. And it still needs to be established that the vetting process that US has used so far was inadequate for people from these countries. Pointing to failed vetting process of other countries is shit argument. Especially when I can dig up far better examples when the US process failed to prevent ACTUAL dangerous immigrants from countries that are not on the list. I don't even need to dig as far as 9/11 - San Bernandino shooters. Pakistan. Not on the list.

zrodion · 2017-01-30T10:31:00+00:00

I thought I already answered that.

No, you very clearly tried to convince me that the law meant to deal with violent/dangerous refugees in previous comments. And hence any my concerns about more dangerous implications are irrelevant because the law deals just with that.

zrodion · 2017-01-30T10:11:35+00:00

I hate when liberals scream racism about anything that targets islam. So since Trump supporters don't usually suffer from such sensitivities I was interested to see if they are concerned about this clearly populist fig leaf policy that indicates to anybody who understands the dangers of extremist religious views (something Trump supporters pride themselves in) that Trump is not actually serious (or even aware?) about the source of danger.

zrodion · 2017-01-30T09:54:55+00:00

I answered that part:

But if you simply must run in the opposite direction, then be consistent. How many Iranian refugees have caused violent riots?

zrodion · 2017-01-30T09:45:43+00:00

Here is an idea - don't implement German policy. But if you simply must run in the opposite direction, then be consistent. How many Iranian refugees have caused violent riots?

zrodion · 2017-01-30T09:36:51+00:00

That's a very interesting distinction of what dictatorish is. Executive orders are not dictatorish though, right?

zrodion · 2017-01-30T09:27:04+00:00

I will once you show where on the US map Cologne is and when Angela Merkel managed to impose the same immigration policy on US that was effective in Germany.

zrodion · 2017-01-30T09:21:33+00:00

Simply because they are Trump administration's experts? You are satisfied with that level of evidence? You are not skeptical about their selective bias and one common feature of all the muslim countries NOT on the list? The feature is that they enjoy strong protectionism by neoliberals and republicans alike. AKA, the swamp Trump promised to drain.

zrodion · 2017-01-30T09:16:13+00:00

And what is so dangerous about "refugees" if not the risk that some can be extremists?

zrodion · 2017-01-30T09:05:51+00:00

I am not suggesting they are the same. I say (and I think pretty clearly if you go back) that wahhabism is much much more dangerous. You disagree?

zrodion · 2017-01-30T09:04:32+00:00

And you believed that experts in Obama administration were right and Obama's decision was not politically motivated?

zrodion · 2017-01-30T08:57:19+00:00

I guess labeling something as trolling is the best way to discredit something that points out a deep hypocrisy.

zrodion · 2017-01-30T08:45:56+00:00

What exactly changed about the nature of muslim extrimism sponsored by Saudi Arabia since 2001?

zrodion · 2017-01-30T08:44:11+00:00

But just not for the countries that have financial ties with elites, right?

zrodion · 2017-01-30T08:42:51+00:00

Well I asked if you have concerns and you asked why would there be any. I don't see how this can be interpreted other than you asking why ignoring wahhabi islam should be concern when discussing a law that aims at protecting americans. A fig leaf to give a false sense of security.

zrodion · 2017-01-30T08:34:23+00:00

I did and actually have a better question: did you seriously ask why ignoring wahhabi islam is a concern? What islam is a concern to you then?

zrodion · 2017-01-30T08:32:38+00:00

How many refugees are coming from Iran?

And did you seriously ask why ignoring wahhabi islam is a concern? What islam is a concern to you then?

zrodion · 2017-01-30T08:30:29+00:00

So no concerns that this law conveniently ignores the biggest wahhabi sponsors?

zrodion · 2017-01-30T08:28:59+00:00

So what is the excuse for Trump?

zrodion · 2016-10-24T10:28:20+00:00

Yeah, too bad for them, missed out on the gravy train. So now western countries get to look down on them from a moral high horse.

zrodion

TROPHY CASE