US Immigration Reform

[Somewhere_]

What Obama did there should not have been allowed either. Yes, people are paying more attention to this one because it's come from Trump (or more likely Bannon or some other puppeteer), but the Trump team has also pushed it further and made a big show of it so getting more attention is their fault for flaunting it.

It is not a complete Muslim ban, but it's a partial one. The intention and the effect is one of banning Muslims disproportionately.

It also goes against the Immigration Act of 1965.

"No person shall receive any preference of priority or be discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of his race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence, except as specifically provided in section 101 (a) (27), section 201 (b), and in section 203"
​

Those sections deal with giving extra priority to family members.

Thank for this. I was about to apologize for getting something wrong about the lawfulness of the travel ban (see: previous posts where I talked about precedences). The travel ban directly violates the Immigration Act of 1965, which while the act has been modified since, the core of the act has remained the same. Namely, immigration restrictions cannot discriminate on nationality or place of birth, which is innate in Trump's Executive Order. However, if this law changes, Trump's EO will be legal AND constitutional.

 

[gimmepie]

Trump fired Yates and someone else involved with Immigration. For disagreeing with him.
He's totally not a fascist though.

Edit:
BadSheep - Executive orders don't get to be made with laws that don't currently exist in mind.

 

[Aeroblast]

On sort of a side note, how disingenuous are politicians in general when people start freaking out Trump is doing exactly what he promised during the campaign and quite quickly at that as well?

For the record I don't necessarily agree with this executive order, either, as there are countries that I think pose more threat to national security (since Trump administration claims this is the reason behind the ban) like Afghanistan instead of Iran which I don't see why is included in this list, though I can see the underlying basis for this beyond "cuz trump is a racist nazi cheeto puff". I think the reactions here (and many other place I've gone to online) are overboard. If you're going to froth at your mouths EVERY TIME Trump actually does something in that you don't agree with that he has clearly said to do in his campaign, then unfortunately it's going to be very long 4, or even 8 years for you people. Most likely 8 because it's hard to unseat an incumbent and the current Democratic Party has their heads buried in the sand.

In the mean time, I'll be waiting for the inevitable meltdown and another round of pointless mass protests in front of some random hospitals once Obamacare gets repealed.

 

[Kanzler]

On sort of a side note, how disingenuous are politicians in general when people start freaking out Trump is doing exactly what he promised during the campaign and quite quickly at that as well?

For the record I don't necessarily agree with this executive order, either, as there are countries that I think pose more threat to national security (since Trump administration claims this is the reason behind the ban) like Afghanistan instead of Iran which I don't see why is included in this list, though I can see the underlying basis for this beyond "cuz trump is a racist nazi cheeto puff". I think the reactions here (and many other place I've gone to online) are overboard. If you're going to froth at your mouths EVERY TIME Trump actually does something in that you don't agree with that he has clearly said to do in his campaign, then unfortunately it's going to be very long 4, or even 8 years for you people. Most likely 8 because it's hard to unseat an incumbent and the current Democratic Party has their heads buried in the sand.

In the mean time, I'll be waiting for the inevitable meltdown and another round of pointless mass protests in front of some random hospitals once Obamacare gets repealed.

But what ought we do other than frothing at the mouth every time Trump does something we don't agree with? Should we just stand by and watch and not let the other case be made?

And if you already don't agree with the XO, what's stopping you from taking a more critical stance against it?

 

[Aeroblast]

But what ought we do other than frothing at the mouth every time Trump does something we don't agree with? Should we just stand by and watch and not let the other case be made?

And if you already don't agree with the XO, what's stopping you from taking a more critical stance against it?

Where were the outrage and protests when drone strikes under Obama administrations have killed hundreds of civilians (including children) in Pakistan?

Where were the outrage and protests when Obama administration interfered with Syria and Libya, resulting in the displacement and deaths of thousands of innocent Muslims and creating/facilitating the mess of a refugee crisis in the first place?

Where were the outrage and protests when Obama administration dropped 100k+ bombs in the Middle East, displacing and killing hundreds of thousands of innocent Muslims over the past 8 years?

Obama has done things far worse than Trump has done so far (not saying Trump won't do worse things in the coming years but let's not count chickens before they hatch), so why the selective outrage? I haven't heard anybody say Obama is "racist and xenophobic" for doing any of the things I've listed. I mean, sure, there were some protests and there were vocal debates online, but the hysteria was not nearly at the level I'm witnessing right now in the mainstream media and forums like this one. Where were the same celebrities crying out at this "Muslim ban" (that isn't really a Muslim ban anyways) when intervention in Syria and Libya have KILLED more innocent Muslims than those affected by the ban today?

And to the second question, reason why I'm not as fervent as a lot of people here is that I do agree with the reasoning behind the temporary restriction, that he wants to keep America safe while coming with up extreme vetting policies from war-torn problematic countries like Syria and Iraq. I just don't think it'll be as effective as the Trump administration hopes it would be for the reasons I've already mentioned. I also don't think wanting to prioritize safety of American citizens over non-citizens is racist (I just want to establish here that nationalism does not equate racism), just as Obama is not racist for interfering with Syria.

I probably should sound more critical of the XO than I am now, but I just want to counterbalance all the hysteria not resort to the festival of ad hominem (which I would argue helped Trump win in the first place!). I guess you can say I'm playing the devil's advocate.

 

[Kanzler]

Where were the outrage and protests when drone strikes under Obama administrations have killed hundreds of civilians (including children) in Pakistan?

Where were the outrage and protests when Obama administration interfered with Syria and Libya, resulting in the displacement and deaths of thousands of innocent Muslims and creating/facilitating the mess of a refugee crisis in the first place?

Where were the outrage and protests when Obama administration dropped 100k+ bombs in the Middle East, displacing and killing hundreds of thousands of innocent Muslims over the past 8 years?

Obama has done things far worse than Trump has done so far (not saying Trump won't do worse things in the coming years but let's not count chickens before they hatch), so why the selective outrage? I haven't heard anybody say Obama is "racist and xenophobic" for doing any of the things I've listed. I mean, sure, there were some protests and there were vocal debates online, but the hysteria was not nearly at the level I'm witnessing right now in the mainstream media and forums like this one. Where were the same celebrities crying out at this "Muslim ban" (that isn't really a Muslim ban anyways) when intervention in Syria and Libya have KILLED more innocent Muslims than those affected by the ban today?

And to the second question, reason why I'm not as fervent as a lot of people here is that I do agree with the reasoning behind the temporary restriction, that he wants to keep America safe while coming with up extreme vetting policies from war-torn problematic countries like Syria and Iraq. I just don't think it'll be as effective as the Trump administration hopes it would be for the reasons I've already mentioned. I also don't think wanting to prioritize safety of American citizens over non-citizens is racist (I just want to establish here that nationalism does not equate racism), just as Obama is not racist for interfering with Syria.

I probably should sound more critical of the XO than I am now, but I just want to counterbalance all the hysteria not resort to the festival of ad hominem (which I would argue helped Trump win in the first place!). I guess you can say I'm playing the devil's advocate.

At least for airstrikes in the Middle East you could argue that was for killing terrorism and was for national security interests. Obama certainly didn't authorize those attacks "for fun" or for boosting his own sake in domestic politics. Trump is obviously just appealing to the racist elements of American society - his XO doesn't even make sense if it's trying to curb people from countries that generate the most terrorism. He's ripping up what this country stands for for the sake of his own personal detestable political goals. I think it's very obvious that Trump's not doing it for the "greater good".

Like, if you're arguing from the perspective of the consequences of those respective actions, then yeah, Trump hasn't killed anyone with his XO. But there's another side to it - what Trump is doing is more threatening to the basic identity of the United States.

 

[Mareep123]

Where were the outrage and protests when drone strikes under Obama administrations have killed hundreds of civilians (including children) in Pakistan?

Where were the outrage and protests when Obama administration interfered with Syria and Libya, resulting in the displacement and deaths of thousands of innocent Muslims and creating/facilitating the mess of a refugee crisis in the first place?

Where were the outrage and protests when Obama administration dropped 100k+ bombs in the Middle East, displacing and killing hundreds of thousands of innocent Muslims over the past 8 years?

Obama has done things far worse than Trump has done so far (not saying Trump won't do worse things in the coming years but let's not count chickens before they hatch), so why the selective outrage? I haven't heard anybody say Obama is "racist and xenophobic" for doing any of the things I've listed. I mean, sure, there were some protests and there were vocal debates online, but the hysteria was not nearly at the level I'm witnessing right now in the mainstream media and forums like this one. Where were the same celebrities crying out at this "Muslim ban" (that isn't really a Muslim ban anyways) when intervention in Syria and Libya have KILLED more innocent Muslims than those affected by the ban today?

And to the second question, reason why I'm not as fervent as a lot of people here is that I do agree with the reasoning behind the temporary restriction, that he wants to keep America safe while coming with up extreme vetting policies from war-torn problematic countries like Syria and Iraq. I just don't think it'll be as effective as the Trump administration hopes it would be for the reasons I've already mentioned. I also don't think wanting to prioritize safety of American citizens over non-citizens is racist (I just want to establish here that nationalism does not equate racism), just as Obama is not racist for interfering with Syria.

I probably should sound more critical of the XO than I am now, but I just want to counterbalance all the hysteria not resort to the festival of ad hominem (which I would argue helped Trump win in the first place!). I guess you can say I'm playing the devil's advocate.

Didn't Obama start writing the exact same policy or was thinking of introducing the ban!? You are spot on with your comments.

 

[Esper]

Where were the outrage and protests when drone strikes under Obama administrations have killed hundreds of civilians (including children) in Pakistan?

Where were the outrage and protests when Obama administration interfered with Syria and Libya, resulting in the displacement and deaths of thousands of innocent Muslims and creating/facilitating the mess of a refugee crisis in the first place?

Where were the outrage and protests when Obama administration dropped 100k+ bombs in the Middle East, displacing and killing hundreds of thousands of innocent Muslims over the past 8 years?

Those are not necessarily issues of immigration (the topic of this thread) and did not not prevent people who should otherwise be legally allowed to travel to the US (visa holders, green card holders, citizens) from traveling to the US. American's friends and family members were less likely to be affected directly by these kinds of actions compared to travel bans.

There were protests and there was outrage, but it wasn't able to generate the large crowds. People today are not the same people from the previous years because of all that we have gone through since the start and end of the election. More people now have become active to politics and government, I'd argue, so a different kind of response has occurred.

 

[Nihilego]

At least for airstrikes in the Middle East you could argue that was for killing terrorism and was for national security interests. Obama certainly didn't authorize those attacks "for fun" or for boosting his own sake in domestic politics. Trump is obviously just appealing to the racist elements of American society - his XO doesn't even make sense if it's trying to curb people from countries that generate the most terrorism. He's ripping up what this country stands for for the sake of his own personal detestable political goals. I think it's very obvious that Trump's not doing it for the "greater good".

Like, if you're arguing from the perspective of the consequences of those respective actions, then yeah, Trump hasn't killed anyone with his XO. But there's another side to it - what Trump is doing is more threatening to the basic identity of the United States.

How is it that when Obama bombards terrorist-associated countries it's "for national security interests", but when Trump prevents them from entering America (which, although certainly morally questionable, is not violent) it's "appealing to the racist" and "ripping up what this country stands for"? I don't support Trump's ban here at all, but when the previous president literally dropped bombs all over some of the banned countries in the hope of getting lucky there's no argument that the ban is worse than what Obama did.

I worry that the only difference here is that the ban is happening in America, so people care, whereas the strikes weren't, so people didn't. Worse, I'm concerned that this ban is being used as fuel against Trump, despite it being nothing next to the atrocities committed by his predecessor.

 

[Esper]

How is it that when Obama bombards terrorist-associated countries it's "for national security interests", but when Trump prevents them from entering America (which, although certainly morally questionable, is not violent) it's "appealing to the racist" and "ripping up what this country stands for"? I don't support Trump's ban here at all, but when the previous president literally dropped bombs all over some of the banned countries in the hope of getting lucky there's no argument that the ban is worse than what Obama did.

I worry that the only difference here is that the ban is happening in America, so people care, whereas the strikes weren't, so people didn't. Worse, I'm concerned that this ban is being used as fuel against Trump, despite it being nothing next to the atrocities committed by his predecessor.

Perhaps people really don't care about things that happen in other countries as much. Or perhaps it is also that they feel something which is happening in their own country is something they can have an impact over. And the opposition to Trump isn't just about the travel ban. There are plenty of actions he has taken which have caused concern for Americans.

Regarding the military actions in the Middle East and elsewhere, if the military is attacking armed insurgents that is a different matter to innocent civilians. The efficacy of the bombings might be in question, but it is considered somewhat normal/permissible for a country's leader to authorize military strikes against people carrying out human rights atrocities in the middle of a war.

For all of Obama's faults, he was acting within an accepted framework for how America operates and even if one considers a particular act here or there to not be in the best interests of the country I think we can all assume that the impact of the decision was considered ahead of time. Trump's team doesn't seem to have as much of that consideration, using the travel ban as just one example where it seems that his team did not consult with the departments that would be affected by the order before issuing it. Trump generally seems to be acting without regard to the rest of the government and people notice this. So when a travel ban is issued many people saw it as a chance for them to speak out in a direct way over an issue in which they could see the whole picture, unlike the often murky reality of military action or something to do with fiscal policy or a similarly nebulous area of government.

 

[Sektor]

For all of Obama's faults, he was acting within an accepted framework for how America operates and even if one considers a particular act here or there to not be in the best interests of the country I think we can all assume that the impact of the decision was considered ahead of time. Trump's team doesn't seem to have as much of that consideration, using the travel ban as just one example where it seems that his team did not consult with the departments that would be affected by the order before issuing it. Trump generally seems to be acting without regard to the rest of the government and people notice this. So when a travel ban is issued many people saw it as a chance for them to speak out in a direct way over an issue in which they could see the whole picture, unlike the often murky reality of military action or something to do with fiscal policy or a similarly nebulous area of government.

Not to be rude, but this whole Syrian refugee mess? Those 'foreseen consequences' they were avoiding? The Obama administration paid no heed to these things, and as such, Obama drafted an executive order to effectively assassinate Libya's leader, Gaddafi, despite several dissonant voices from within the house and senate.

Despite being told by the Libyan rebels themselves stating that they wish for 'no assistance whatsoever' in overthrowing the current rule caused a power vacuum. This vacuum split the country in two (figuratively) and during this time no one seemed to notice the void was being filled by Islamic extremist groups like ISIL and ISIS. Obama was told this would happen and instead of getting out of the Middle East, like he promised, he sent the US to fight a war there that he and his cabinet created in the first place. So we are all trying to pick up the pieces of this mistake and people are being labeled all sorts of names when attempting to do anything about it.

Regardless of however many times someone repeats 'Muslim ban' or 'Islam ban' it is simply not true. It isn't that people didn't know about Obama banning country immigration for six months (a longer time) they just didn't care. I think the popular thing now is to hate white males.

There are so many double standards that it's mind boggling.

Trump says he'll keep his options open if he loses = Trump hates American Electoral system and is evil.
Hillary does the exact same thing = . . .
Trump says the system is rigged = Liar and needs a tinfoil hat
Hillary says the same thing (despite rigging it in her favor over Bernie Sanders) = Must be true

There is a unique pattern here where one side can talk all the shit they want, despite being incorrect on so many levels (regarding much of the main stream media). It's fun and popular, not to mention no doubt profitable to hate on Trump no matter what he does to the point of lunacy. People would rather spend this time spreading misinformation and trending on Twitter. With the mass amounts of equating his inauguration as worse than September 9/11 . . . people on the left, unfortunately, are now being pushed to the same side as these folk. They don't try to avoid being pushed to this side, which is strange to me. But I'm rambling:

Spoiler:

Obama aftermath of Gaddafi overthrow worst mistake as president

Obama says: Libya was worst mistake of his presidency

BBC News on the same topic.

Hillary Clinton is so broken up over the destabilization of the Middle East.

 

[Kanzler]

How is it that when Obama bombards terrorist-associated countries it's "for national security interests", but when Trump prevents them from entering America (which, although certainly morally questionable, is not violent) it's "appealing to the racist" and "ripping up what this country stands for"? I don't support Trump's ban here at all, but when the previous president literally dropped bombs all over some of the banned countries in the hope of getting lucky there's no argument that the ban is worse than what Obama did.

I worry that the only difference here is that the ban is happening in America, so people care, whereas the strikes weren't, so people didn't. Worse, I'm concerned that this ban is being used as fuel against Trump, despite it being nothing next to the atrocities committed by his predecessor.

I think most people tend towards nationalism than world citizenship. I mean, most people are going to value the lives of their countrymen over the lives of foreigners, especially those who might threaten them or their soldiers overseas or their national security interests. I don't think people are making a comment on the overarching morality of Trump's actions vs. Obama's, just about the appropriateness of what the President should be doing in his role as President. The role of what Presidents, or countries more broadly speaking, should be doing is not the question at stake for those up in arms about Trump's ban.

If Trump's travel ban came from a national security motivation, then he should've looked into banning people from Saudi Arabia or Pakistan if he wants to stop terrorists. If he wants to bully a foreign Muslim-majority government, well, there aren't too many of them worth bullying at the moment, so there's no national interest argument there, either. You could argue that Trump is just as motivated in national security as Obama was with his airstrikes, but it's completely superficial when you look into it.

 

[Arsenic]

So am I still waiting
For this world to stop hating
Can't find a good reason
Can't find hope to believe in

Sorry I'll just go

After I say, If anyone thinks we're dropping bombs all over the middle east hoping to "get lucky" they obviously haven't the slightest clue that military technology has actually advanced since Vietnam.

And like always, they're not just bombing villages, but outposts, supply depots, battlements, etc.

Oh sorry I forgot America is just a bunch of rough hillybilly soldiers who all enjoy rounding up families and forcing the children to watch their parents get a bullet through their skull, and the air force just likes to bomb schools, hospitals, and UN facilities. GRRR LOOKOUT WE'RE THE DEFINITION OF EVIL WORLD.

 

[Sektor]

I think most people tend towards nationalism than world citizenship. I mean, most people are going to value the lives of their countrymen over the lives of foreigners, especially those who might threaten them or their soldiers overseas or their national security interests. I don't think people are making a comment on the overarching morality of Trump's actions vs. Obama's, just about the appropriateness of what the President should be doing in his role as President. The role of what Presidents, or countries more broadly speaking, should be doing is not the question at stake for those up in arms about Trump's ban.

If Trump's travel ban came from a national security motivation, then he should've looked into banning people from Saudi Arabia or Pakistan if he wants to stop terrorists. If he wants to bully a foreign Muslim-majority government, well, there aren't too many of them worth bullying at the moment, so there's no national interest argument there, either. You could argue that Trump is just as motivated in national security as Obama was with his airstrikes, but it's completely superficial when you look into it.

Once again, this ban is temporary and of less duration than Obama's ban. Suddenly it's not okay to do this. I suppose everyone lucked out that there weren't riots ('peaceful protests') in the streets during 2011, despite creating yet another war. Hm. I can't speak for everyone here, but that sure doesn't smack me as what a 'President should do' kind of moment. It's nearly identical to what the Bush Administration was criticized for, but I suppose Obama gets a free pass? To quote a Nob "Sounds stupid, but okay."

The countries on the list were crafted by the OBAMA (I feel that I need to bold this, I don't know why) administration who labeled these countries as 'terrorist hotbeds'. So if there is blame going around as *read in snarkinese* "Well, why didn't he ban Saudi Arabia?" ask the Obama security cabinet. This didn't fall out of the great blue sky and it wasn't from far left field. These countries were suspected by Obama's CIA and NSA as the most likely for what the ban hopes to prevent.

And, since it is only three months, it will be reviewed and revisited after the current administration determines why the Obama administration suspected these countries, and if they're not a danger they will be removed from the list. It's very much all clear in the actual document. . .

I suppose people can view the ban however they want, but blanketing the writ with 'Muslim/Islam ban' is horrendously and grossly incorrect. To use their own logic against them, stating that in fact, Muslims themselves are not banned and neither is their religion. Countries and their citizens is far more accurate.

 

[gimmepie]

Once again, this ban is temporary and of less duration than Obama's ban. Suddenly it's not okay to do this. I suppose everyone lucked out that there weren't riots ('peaceful protests') in the streets during 2011, despite creating yet another war. Hm. I can't speak for everyone here, but that sure doesn't smack me as what a 'President should do' kind of moment. It's nearly identical to what the Bush Administration was criticized for, but I suppose Obama gets a free pass? To quote a Nob "Sounds stupid, but okay."

The countries on the list were crafted by the OBAMA (I feel that I need to bold this, I don't know why) administration who labeled these countries as 'terrorist hotbeds'. So if there is blame going around as *read in snarkinese* "Well, why didn't he ban Saudi Arabia?" ask the Obama security cabinet. This didn't fall out of the great blue sky and it wasn't from far left field. These countries were suspected by Obama's CIA and NSA as the most likely for what the ban hopes to prevent.

And, since it is only three months, it will be reviewed and revisited after the current administration determines why the Obama administration suspected these countries, and if they're not a danger they will be removed from the list. It's very much all clear in the actual document. . .

I suppose people can view the ban however they want, but blanketing the writ with 'Muslim/Islam ban' is horrendously and grossly incorrect. To use their own logic against them, stating that in fact, Muslims themselves are not banned and neither is their religion. Countries and their citizens is far more accurate.

Yes I'm completely sure that the reason being Muslim in and of itself isn't banned is because Trump is secretly not a xenophobe and has nothing at all to do with the constitution guaranteeing freedom of religion in the US.

Also, stop pretending that we're only rallying against this because it's Trump. If I'd known anything about Obama putting something similar in place, I'd have been just as vocally opposed to that. You're currently employing the same excuse that Trump himself made every time someone critiqued him "BUT HILLARY DID..."/"BUT OBAMA DID". It does not matter what anyone else did. Trump is the president, Trump made this call and this would still be wrong regardless of who is in office. What other people have done or would do doesn't excuse Trump's actions now.

As it stands though, this is just one of several times that Trump has displayed xenophobic or racist tendencies. So how about we stop acting like anyone who opposes him is just shouting buzzwords and being sore losers? Because, at this point, denying that Trump is either of those things is like denying there was a holocaust. There are people who do that, but we all know there was one. It's irrefutable.

 

[Sektor]

Yes I'm completely sure that the reason being Muslim in and of itself isn't banned is because Trump is secretly not a xenophobe and has nothing at all to do with the constitution guaranteeing freedom of religion in the US.

Also, stop pretending that we're only rallying against this because it's Trump. If I'd known anything about Obama putting something similar in place, I'd have been just as vocally opposed to that. You're currently employing the same excuse that Trump himself made every time someone critiqued him "BUT HILLARY DID..."/"BUT OBAMA DID". It does not matter what anyone else did. Trump is the president, Trump made this call and this would still be wrong regardless of who is in office. What other people have done or would do doesn't excuse Trump's actions now.

As it stands though, this is just one of several times that Trump has displayed xenophobic or racist tendencies. So how about we stop acting like anyone who opposes him is just shouting buzzwords and being sore losers? Because, at this point, denying that Trump is either of those things is like denying there was a holocaust. There are people who do that, but we all know there was one. It's irrefutable.

I'm not going to argue that Trump is or is not racist/xenophobic/misogynistic because whether that's true or not, it doesn't explain away how and why others are going along with it. Not everyone can be all those things that you're labeling Trump as. It's nonsensical and hysterical.

How is it possible that 50% of voters are for it? Are they all racist/xenophobic as well? If the logic holds for Trump, then that logic would then fall to everyone who supports the temporary ban, regardless of what they actually think.

If we're not going to argue past instances it makes no sense then, to even attempt to justify the writ, as there then becomes the issue that Trump himself 'must have' picked out the countries to ban, which isn't true. Again, this didn't fall out of thin air.

Arguing against the current administration, when it was the previous administration that created this entire mess to begin with . . . well.

The temporary ban is in response to the poor excuse that Obama didn't address nor attempt to fix. Dealing with it is going to take time. Ignoring the fact that yes, the Obama administration did indeed destabilize the middle East; and yes, the Obama administration's policies then supported the very terrorists that we're currently warring with.

If we're going to ignore what Obama has done with his time, then we must then pretend that the refugees and/or terrorists 'appeared' and not as a direct result to poor management on behalf of the previous administration.

Expecting 50% of the country (those who voted) to go along with letting in 50,000 people 'because' is unreasonable. The process (previous administration) wouldn't have vetted the influx of people. Letting in a mass of people without a plan is stupid. ISIS has stated they would come with the refugees.

If, several cells did enter the states then who would be to blame? Who would then get blamed for letting in all the nasty little terrorist bombers and shooters? It's a Catch-22. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. If the current administration does what everyone (not everyone) wants them to do (let the people in without holding them) and something does happen . . . where would the blame fall? You said yourself, "not Obama" because, to paraphrase your own words "He's no longer the President" so, I assume by your logic, if a terrorist originating from ISIS attacks the US then it's then Trump's fault.

Also, saying 'If I had known I would have done something' is also the same excuse the Nazis used to justify the Holocaust if you'd like to bring that up. Claiming "Oh, I would have done something. I would have sure done something. Yeah, sure, you-betcha" isn't the same thing as opposing what's current. It leaves lots of questions.

Why is it that you feel that the Middle East is important now, but not then? What changed?
Do you know anyone from the Middle East?
If no, then why is it important now?
Were you misinformed in the past or hadn't thought about it? Too busy or . . . ?
Where were the mass protests when the past administration destabilized the Middle East?
When, if ever, will you decry the previous administration's faults?
Is the past not relevant? Then why bring up the Holocaust?
Has Trump executed anyone of Jewish decent? If no, then why bring up irrelevant information?
To whom does the US constitution apply?

Edit: I attempted to remove any 'not serious' talk.


*I don't support nor condone any acts of terror

 

[Esper]

~*~

Re: Gaddafi and Libya
The US was one of over a dozen other countries that participated in the military strikes in Libya. It was other countries like France and the UK which pressured the US to get involved. If there is blame to be had it should be shared with a lot more than just Obama. Our own Senate wanted us to intervene with a no-fly zone. The US did not "fight a war there" since it only sent in jets and such. The US did not instigate the chaos in Libya either. Rebels opposed to Gaddafi began the fighting and it was the nascent civil war and rampant killing that got other countries involved. The end result of getting involved was bad, yes, but that doesn't mean that Obama just leapt in guns blazing for the hell of it.

Re: that stuff you say about the media.
How is it "profitable" to hate on Trump? That sounds like some kind of off-hand ad hominem with no real basis just for the sake of stirring up trouble and/or inflating one's ego. How are you complaining about people spending time on Twitter and spreading misinformation when that is the thing that Trump himself is doing? And a lot of it is for no reason, nonsensical stuff like his insistence that there were more people at the inauguration than there actually were. Where do you get the idea that people are equating the inauguration with 9/11? None of my liberal "traitor" friends have ever said that and I've seen no mention of it like anywhere.

Anyway, like, I get that Libya is a bad place now. It was bad before. Is it worse to have ISIS there or a madman dictator? I don't know the answer to that. I'm no fan of military adventures around the world and "regime change" but I'm also not a fan of genocide and human rights abuses so if there is a crisis somewhere in the world I'm sympathetic to the people who want to do something about it and save lives. Perhaps you wouldn't agree with my assessment that it was this sentiment in part which explained the US and the other countries' desire to do something about Gaddafi, but I think it makes a hell of difference that a mistake was made in the aim of trying to help people. A travel ban from Muslim countries doesn't help or even potentially help anyone. That's what diplomats, the military and intelligence agencies, and the friendly governments in the Middle East and elsewhere all say.


EDIT: Just saw your latest post and... you think it was Obama who destabilized the Middle East?

 

[Mareep123]

Will Trump accept refugees from Australia?

The Obama administration agreed to resettle 1250 refugees held by Australia. Given that Trump has placed a ban on refugees from Muslim countries entering America, will he accept those refugees and should they be accepted or should Australia accept them?

 

[Arsenic]

I believe he already said he would honor the agreement in the phonecall that he hung up on AU's PM like the little whiny baby gnome he is.

 

[pastelspectre]

all i'm going to say is that this decision is not okay and that i am ashamed to be from america