| I'm stoked at what he has done so far, but he should ban all Muslim countries. |
| the us gov. under obama made Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015 - https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/2029 an was amended to Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016 - https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/158 ppls from countrys iran, iraq, syria, sudan who wold novrmaly be granted visa waivers wold be denied then in feb last year list expandedied w/ incluson libya, somalia and yemen bc obama administraton recognized threats from thes contrys that list of 7 contrys seem familar? but no no ignore dis, trump totaly just in it for $monies$ |
| @Symphyon Of course it's fishy, trump gotta listen to his masters. And as @Salvatia said, those 7 countries that are banned are the ones these zionists have been trying to attack or have attacked. Watch the video 7 countries in 7 years. |
Please learn about cel animation and its technical process. Learn how special effects and backlighting were done without computers. |
DateYutaka said: Nah man, he's just playing 4000th dimensional chess!Cabron said: @Symphyon Of course it's fishy, trump gotta listen to his masters. And as @Salvatia said, those 7 countries that are banned are the ones these zionists have been trying to attack or have attacked. Watch the video 7 countries in 7 years. trump is a hardcore Zionist and a saudi dick sucker |
Please learn about cel animation and its technical process. Learn how special effects and backlighting were done without computers. |
| I think we are reaching the conclusion a bit too fast. First of all, NPR is becoming increasingly anti-Trump, which would speak for itself as to the negative attitude of the article. But that's irrelevant. Trump, before becoming the President, was the owner of a billionaire company. You don't get a couple billion net worth by constraining your network and interest all within the scope of United States. There is no doubt he has business in the countries exempt from the travel ban, but he most likely have business interests in the banned countries as well. Although I have no clear evidence of this, but my point is just that I think we reaching a conclusion too fast without seeing both side of the argument. |
WHEN IT RAINS, IT POURS. |
DateYutaka said: I know, just pointing out the mental gymnastics that like to be used.Cabron said: Nah man, he's just playing 4000th dimensional chess! that is rightist double speak |
Please learn about cel animation and its technical process. Learn how special effects and backlighting were done without computers. |
Candor said: http://www.npr.org/2017/01/28/511996783/how-does-trumps-immigration-freeze-square-with-his-business-interests?utm_source=tumblr.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=20170128 "The executive action, "Protecting The Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into The United States," targets seven nations: Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen. Trump has no business interests in those countries. One other thing they have in common, as NPR's Greg Myre writes: "No Muslim extremist from any of these places has carried out a fatal attack in the U.S. in more than two decades." The 19 terrorists in the Sept. 11 attacks were from Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Lebanon and the United Arab Emirates, Myre points out. They are among the Muslim-majority countries not affected by Trump's immigration freeze, but where Trump does business. He has significant commercial interests in Turkey and Azerbaijan, is developing properties in Indonesia and Dubai, and has formed companies in Egypt and Saudi Arabia. His daughter Ivanka said in 2015 that the company was looking at "multiple opportunities in Dubai, Abu Dhabi, Qatar, Saudi Arabia — the four areas where we are seeing the most interest. Critics said it appears that Trump is picking favorites, overlooking terrorist links in countries such as Saudi Arabia and Turkey that have their own history of terrorism." --- Just trying to keep some diversity in this subforums. Wondering what people are gonna argue about Trump putting his business over 'Murica. You do realize that there are about 50 Muslim majority countries? Amzing how NPR would post such drivel,perhaps they should change their initials to LPR in order to stand for liberal propaganda radio. The idea that Trump is giving a pass to Muslim countries because he has businesses in them is absurd. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_by_country |
ezikialrageJan 30, 2017 3:25 AM
| This thread isn't getting a lot of replies because they can't find "alternative facts" to make an argument. He's got a golf course set to open in Dubai this year (one out of two I believe) and has yet to release his tax return publicly. He has a bunch of failed Trump brand businesses, let us hope Trump Presidency™ doesn't bomb 'cause it'll drag most of the world with it. |
 |
CtrlZED said: Actually, here's some food for thought: This thread isn't getting a lot of replies because they can't find "alternative facts" to make an argument. He's got a golf course set to open in Dubai this year (one out of two I believe) and has yet to release his tax return publicly. He has a bunch of failed Trump brand businesses, let us hope Trump Presidency™ doesn't bomb 'cause it'll drag most of the world with it. What nations do the Islamic State have physical presence in? What nations have other large-scale Islamist insurgencies or uprisings? What nations have, at the highest levels, supported terrorist groups and acts against the US or its interests (designated State Sponsors of Terrorism)? Answers: 1) Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen 2) Somalia (Al-Shabaab, an Al-Qaeda affiliate) 3) Sudan, Iran, Syria, Libya (deposed regime), Iraq (deposed regime) Oh wait, that's an interesting and very familiar list. Oh, and for the record, Iraq is the only one of these that Trump had much chance to generate business interests in. Sudan, Syria, and Iran have long been blocked by US law as State Sponsors of Terrorism. Somalia and Yemen have been too unstable for business investment for decades. Libya was also blocked as a State Sponsor of Terrorism before its revolution, and too unstable after. Syria, Iraq, Iran, and Libya also have (or had) internal laws preventing most foreign investment. Now, we can go on and on with hyperbole regarding other things. But the truth is, thanks to Obama, Al-Qaeda is not first and foremost in people's minds anymore - despite it having a history and still being a threat. So yes, this is about optics. And the big name today is the Islamic State. And yes, Trump has no business interest in any of these countries. But Iraq is the only one of them anybody in the US has much business interest in. In other words, it's a relatively low impact rule - perfect for political optics, and that has exactly nothing to do with Trump's business. The same ruling would have made just as much sense if he had no foreign business interests at all. You have a valid angle of attack (just for show), and a questionable but clearly partisan one (corruption). Which one you use says a heck of a lot more about you than Trump. tl;dr The list is made up of State Sponsors of Terrorism and nations with direct ties to the current perceived terrorist threats. Almost every nation here is one Trump had little or no opportunity to build business interests in anyway. In other words, it's not necessarily because he has no business interests that Trump blocked them - it could be that has no business interests in them because they have issues. And since that holds for everyone else as well, that makes them good targets for a rule made just for show. |
Candor said: The move is proven to be not motivated out of self interest. The countries were already selected during the Obama administration and Trump is simply halting entrance while he changes the vetting process. Does this mean he does not have interest in those countries exempt? No. Does this mean that the act itself is not purely fueled by these interests? Certainly. It's funny how this post got less replies than its counterpart about banning. Apparently people will still be in denial despite all the obvious shit, so yeah, wait until he destroys your country and then come back and say "you're jumping to conclusions". Luckily your people aren't staying silent and watching, and are working on stopping your unqualified "president". One "unqualified" man will no destroy the country, its corrupt systems from government to business will do that just fine. We've been on a course to ruin for awhile now and Trump is just another, if unexpected, figure in a line of talking heads. There are plenty "qualified people" who would equally sell US interests out for profit aside from Tump. There's proof of much during Obama's administration with the lenience toward SA and weapon trades. Of course I'm sure being "qualified" makes their actions acceptable. |
 |
Candor said: Sora_no_Umi said: Reaching conclusions? This is not only NPR talking, this is facts talking. Trump HAS business in Saudi Arabia, he doesn't in the banned countries. And Saudi Arabia is the worst muslim country out there, it's the country that's responsible for the violence against your country. A president of the united states is also not supposed to take money from foreign countries, because it means he puts his work before his current main job, and that job if you forgot is the President of the United States, the president of 300+ million people, not only of the 60 million who voted for him.I think we are reaching the conclusion a bit too fast. First of all, NPR is becoming increasingly anti-Trump, which would speak for itself as to the negative attitude of the article. But that's irrelevant. Trump, before becoming the President, was the owner of a billionaire company. You don't get a couple billion net worth by constraining your network and interest all within the scope of United States. There is no doubt he has business in the countries exempt from the travel ban, but he most likely have business interests in the banned countries as well. Although I have no clear evidence of this, but my point is just that I think we reaching a conclusion too fast without seeing both side of the argument. It's funny how this post got less replies than its counterpart about banning. Apparently people will still be in denial despite all the obvious shit, so yeah, wait until he destroys your country and then come back and say "you're jumping to conclusions". Luckily your people aren't staying silent and watching, and are working on stopping your unqualified "president". Then what about the time when Obama restricted the same seven countries from immigration? I would not consider myself a Trump supporter by any means, but I feel this particular situation is just blown out of proportion by the media. |
| WHEN IT RAINS, IT POURS. |
| conflict of interest right there, is that impeachable? if so Trump should better watch out Sora_no_Umi said: Then what about the time when Obama restricted the same seven countries from immigration? is this it? CLAIM: President Trump's executive order limiting travel and immigration from certain countries was made possible under a bill signed into law by President Obama in 2015. WHAT'S TRUE: The "seven countries" targeted by President Trump's 27 January 2017 executive order pertaining to immigration were not mentioned by name and instead originated with "countr[ies] or area[s] of concern" first identified in the Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015 (expanded to all seven countries "of concern" in February 2016). WHAT'S FALSE: The 2015 bill was attached as a rider to a "must pass" omnibus spending bill and did not create an outright ban on entry into the U.S. from designated countries. http://www.snopes.com/trump-immigration-order-obama/ so Obama did not do a muslim ban on those countries though |
Neane93 said: >and is the head of alliances among Muslim nations to combat terrorism.Saudi Arabia has had a history of dealing with terrorism [before all this Terrorist stuff a Radical tried to capture Mecca for example] and has collaborated with the USA in terms of combating terrorist organizations, has founded rehabilitation centers to transform terrorist suspects that they capture into decent human beings, and is the head of alliances among Muslim nations to combat terrorism. Surprise, a bunch of tribal chieftains who got into power via getting rid of Muhammad's kin don't wanna be killed. You can say what you want about the culture there and talk all you want about Trump's business, but in terms of International they have worked against terrorism along with the USA and don't warrant a ban since they supply the USA with all the information they want about possible terror suspects. [We should get rid of the Saudi Arabia being the head of UN Human Rights though, hopefully via the UN being disbanded finally lol] Not right now they aren't, not when they are doing the complete opposite. You know, giving money to the terrorists to fight in Syria and Iraq. |
CabronJan 31, 2017 2:19 AM
Please learn about cel animation and its technical process. Learn how special effects and backlighting were done without computers. |
| Obongo wanted to restrict the same countries but did not. Obongo handpicked these, not Trump. He also said future additions are possible. Try to read less propagandist material. |
Play League of Legends here! Autocrat said: Hitler was good, objectively. |
| Zionist puppet is doing his job very fast. War is coming sooner than you might think, sheeple. |
 |
| Yes, you actually do read propagandist material. Most of the mainstream media is democrat controlled in America, most of the shit they spew is mostly false, taken out of context or exaggerated. All this "justice purging" are people that refused to do their jobs, I imagine that that's normal to fire off in any workplace. And this 'division' you're talking about is mostly liberals whining while still believing the mainstream media is honest. You clearly are deluded though, you think memes are actually statements of truth and take one case that you exaggerated by claiming it's a purge to claim America is walking towards fascism. You're also already showing your bias by claiming Trump wants to make "America white again". Get back to us when you're not on LSD, @Candor. You're too woke. |
Play League of Legends here! Autocrat said: Hitler was good, objectively. |
| So by your logic, no one in the White House should do anything besides what says in the oath. No, her job as attorney general is to defend his executive actions. She was Obongo appointed, where was her rebellion for the Constitution when he banned Iran? Nowhere to be seen because there's nothing to rebel against. Trump can legally do this. @Candor Sorry, but America is a Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy. I don't give a shit about whining liberals that also have no argument. I'm keeping this president that fulfils his promises, after all, that's why he was elected. |
Play League of Legends here! Autocrat said: Hitler was good, objectively. |
| Because racism and discrimination are fine to be used by leftist scum until it's turned against them. About the statement of the current "divide" that's happening in the US, by human nature we are more likely to throw a tantrum over things we dislike than praise things we experience as positive. Mod Edit: Removed quote of deleted post. |
ArdanazFeb 20, 2017 12:57 AM
| When the voice from the shadows calls you When the wind whips past your ears Will you stand when the weight is upon you Or will you go to your knees in fear? |
Neane93 said: Which is ironic, since they've been chopping off heads.Cabron said: I accidentally deleted my post so reposting.>and is the head of alliances among Muslim nations to combat terrorism. Not right now they aren't, not when they are doing the complete opposite. You know, giving money to the terrorists to fight in Syria and Iraq. We also supported ISIS by giving the "moderates" arms and them suddenly joining ISIS after getting our gifts and eating some hearts on the way. Saudis need the USA to not get their heads chopped off and their lands becoming a bunch of backward tribals fighting each other for pockets of sand. They're dance if we decide to sing a new tune as they've done so in the past. |
Please learn about cel animation and its technical process. Learn how special effects and backlighting were done without computers. |
| Well at least with Trump the conflicts of interest are clearly evident for everyone to see. |
Neane93 said: Cabron said: I accidentally deleted my post so reposting.>and is the head of alliances among Muslim nations to combat terrorism. Not right now they aren't, not when they are doing the complete opposite. You know, giving money to the terrorists to fight in Syria and Iraq. We also supported ISIS by giving the "moderates" arms and them suddenly joining ISIS after getting our gifts and eating some hearts on the way. Saudis need the USA to not get their heads chopped off and their lands becoming a bunch of backward tribals fighting each other for pockets of sand. They're dance if we decide to sing a new tune as they've done so in the past. Be more specific than moderates. Which ones? |
Lobinde said: Well at least with Trump the conflicts of interest are clearly evident for everyone to see. Does that mean Trump bribed Obama to exclude regions with Trump-property in them, or do you think Trump just had foresight to invest in areas that are more stable and less dangerous? |
 |
Symphyon said: Altairius said: I'm stoked at what he has done so far, but he should ban all Muslim countries. From what I know he hasn't banned Saudi Arabia and other countries yet, and while I'm against banning people that aren't even involved in the country, this is kind of fishy. There are no refugees in Saudi Arabia. I think it's dumb to ban immigration. But it's dumb to accept refugees to Europe and the States when it's a lot cheaper to reintegrate them in neighbour countries. For every refugee you bring to the states you could be helping 12 if you integrated them in the middle east instead. I can't know what Trump is thinking and his word is not law, if he can make it so refugees go to neighbour countries instead everybody wins. |
| A curve including all entries should be of a gaussian form. One including limited entries by picking animes you liked and not rating animes you dropped should look like mine. Amount of total animes each rating should have (percentages): 6-25,7-15,8-6,9-3,10-1  |
j0x said: conflict of interest right there, is that impeachable? if so Trump should better watch out Sora_no_Umi said: Then what about the time when Obama restricted the same seven countries from immigration? is this it? CLAIM: President Trump's executive order limiting travel and immigration from certain countries was made possible under a bill signed into law by President Obama in 2015. WHAT'S TRUE: The "seven countries" targeted by President Trump's 27 January 2017 executive order pertaining to immigration were not mentioned by name and instead originated with "countr[ies] or area[s] of concern" first identified in the Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015 (expanded to all seven countries "of concern" in February 2016). WHAT'S FALSE: The 2015 bill was attached as a rider to a "must pass" omnibus spending bill and did not create an outright ban on entry into the U.S. from designated countries. http://www.snopes.com/trump-immigration-order-obama/ so Obama did not do a muslim ban on those countries though What I meant was not that Obama did ban, but rather, similar actions occurred in both administration, despite being in different parties. By the end of it, both lowered the amount of people coming into the United States from the Middle East, though one is more severe than the other. That point that I'm trying to make here is that this is just an extension of what Obama did, the protests people are making seems beyond necessary. Speculation: if the current president was a democrat, and not republican, the media would not have exploded the way it did under Trump. Though it is less likely a restriction on immigration would be placed under a democratic administration, IF a similar policy was implemented, it would have been met with minimum resistance Again, I feel that this is just the liberal media outlet trying to criticize every single one of Trump's action. Personally, I think the fact that this was a straight up ban, including green card holders, seems going too far, but the idea of restricting immigration overall is one I can agree with. |
| WHEN IT RAINS, IT POURS. |
Sora_no_Umi said: j0x said: conflict of interest right there, is that impeachable? if so Trump should better watch out is this it? CLAIM: President Trump's executive order limiting travel and immigration from certain countries was made possible under a bill signed into law by President Obama in 2015. WHAT'S TRUE: The "seven countries" targeted by President Trump's 27 January 2017 executive order pertaining to immigration were not mentioned by name and instead originated with "countr[ies] or area[s] of concern" first identified in the Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015 (expanded to all seven countries "of concern" in February 2016). WHAT'S FALSE: The 2015 bill was attached as a rider to a "must pass" omnibus spending bill and did not create an outright ban on entry into the U.S. from designated countries. http://www.snopes.com/trump-immigration-order-obama/ so Obama did not do a muslim ban on those countries though What I meant was not that Obama did ban, but rather, similar actions occurred in both administration, despite being in different parties. By the end of it, both lowered the amount of people coming into the United States from the Middle East, though one is more severe than the other. That point that I'm trying to make here is that this is just an extension of what Obama did, the protests people are making seems beyond necessary. Speculation: if the current president was a democrat, and not republican, the media would not have exploded the way it did under Trump. Though it is less likely a restriction on immigration would be placed under a democratic administration, IF a similar policy was implemented, it would have been met with minimum resistance Again, I feel that this is just the liberal media outlet trying to criticize every single one of Trump's action. Personally, I think the fact that this was a straight up ban, including green card holders, seems going too far, but the idea of restricting immigration overall is one I can agree with. the people and the media are against this since its a more extreme ban measure thats all, Obama did not even make new vetting rules (afaik) when his administration identify those 7 muslim countries so Obama still allow a lot of people from those countries especially visa or green card holders |
| Trump is a sick man. According to him every Muslim is a potential terrorist. If you've watched Naruto and do know about the Uchiha Massacre then you'd probably understand me. No race, religon or cast is EVIL. Only selfish humans are EVIL.  [/quote] |
 Join Emilia's self-proclaimed knights club if you are a fellow Emilia fan |
More topics from this board
Sticky: » The Current Events Board Will Be Closed on Friday JST ( 1 2 3 4 5 ... Last Page )Luna - Aug 2, 2021 |
272 |
by traed
»»
Aug 5, 2021 5:56 PM |
|
» Third shot of Sinovac COVID-19 vaccine offers big increase in antibody levels: study ( 1 2 )Desolated - Jul 30, 2021 |
50 |
by Desolated
»»
Aug 5, 2021 3:24 PM |
|
» Western vaccine producers engage in shameless profiteering while poorer countries are supplied mainly by China.Desolated - Aug 5, 2021 |
1 |
by Bourmegar
»»
Aug 5, 2021 3:23 PM |
|
» NLRB officer says Amazon violated US labor lawDesolated - Aug 3, 2021 |
17 |
by kitsune0
»»
Aug 5, 2021 1:41 PM |
|
» China Backs Cuba in Saying US Should Apply Sanctions To ItselfDesolated - Aug 5, 2021 |
10 |
by Desolated
»»
Aug 5, 2021 1:36 PM |