Trumps Immigration Executive Order

[GMDino]

(01-31-2017, 02:56 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Allow me to repeat myself, because you clearly missed it:

I didn't miss it...it was wrong both times.  

[Griever]

since it seems like none of ya'll read the article to see what it was and why it was done

2. Not a ban: Contrary to Trump’s Sunday statement and the repeated claims of his defenders, the Obama administration did not “ban visas for refugees from Iraq for six months.” For one thing, refugees don’t travel on visas. More importantly, while the flow of Iraqi refugees slowed significantly during the Obama administration’s review, refugees continued to be admitted to the United States during that time, and there was not a single month in which no Iraqis arrived here. In other words, while there were delays in processing, there was no outright ban.

3. Grounded in specific threat: The Obama administration’s 2011 review came in response to specific threat information, including the arrest in Kentucky of two Iraqi refugees, still the only terrorism-related arrests out of about 130,000 Iraqi refugees and SIV holders admitted to the United States. Thus far, the Trump administration has provided no evidence, nor even asserted, that any specific information or intelligence has led to its draconian order.

[*PhilHos*]

(01-31-2017, 02:56 PM)GMDino Wrote: I didn't miss it...it was wrong both times.  

So, Trump's Executive Order IS like the law Obama signed in 2011? You just said it was different.

[Griever]

(01-31-2017, 03:01 PM)PhilHos Wrote: So, Trump's Executive Order IS like the law Obama signed in 2011? You just said it was different.

no its not, obamas was grounded in a specific threat at the time

trumps is grounded in brown people are bad and his right wing supporters are scared of muslims

[*PhilHos*]

(01-31-2017, 03:06 PM)Griever Wrote: no its not, obamas was grounded in a specific threat at the time

I understand that. I've already said, twice, that Obama's law was not the same as Trump's Executive Order. It's Dino who for some reason is claiming that it's the same after already acknowledging that it's not.

(01-31-2017, 03:06 PM)Griever Wrote: trumps is grounded in brown people are bad and his right wing supporters are scared of muslims

False, but the truth is usually far from what race baiters care about.

[Griever]

(01-31-2017, 03:10 PM)PhilHos Wrote: I understand that. I've already said, twice, that Obama's law was not the same as Trump's Executive Order. It's Dino who for some reason is claiming that it's the same after already acknowledging that it's not.


False, but the truth is usually far from what race baiters care about.

so what is trumps based on? what plots have refugees planned to carry out?

[*PhilHos*]

(01-31-2017, 03:11 PM)Griever Wrote: so what is trumps based on? what plots have refugees planned to carry out?

I don't know, ask him. If I would hazard a guess, I would say he has seen what happened in Germany and wants to avoid that here in America. At least, in terms of the refugee part of his ban. 

To the immigration side, I believe it's to better the vetting process, but I may be recalling his campaign promises and not anything he's said in regards to it recently. Or maybe I'm mixing the two sides up. I don't know.

[GMDino]

(01-31-2017, 03:19 PM)PhilHos Wrote: I don't know, ask him. If I would hazard a guess, I would say he has seen what happened in Germany and wants to avoid that here in America. At least, in terms of the refugee part of his ban. 

To the immigration side, I believe it's to better the vetting process, but I may be recalling his campaign promises and not anything he's said in regards to it recently. Or maybe I'm mixing the two sides up. I don't know.

You could just listen to what his said (actual words, not what's in his heart).

He cited San Bernardino and 9/11.

I'll let you figure out what was wrong with that.

[*PhilHos*]

(01-31-2017, 03:21 PM)GMDino Wrote: You could just listen to what his said (actual words, not what's in his heart).

He cited San Bernardino and 9/11.

I'll let you figure out what was wrong with that.

Can you link to where he's said that? It's not that I don't believe you (really, it's not), it's just any Google search I do on the ban only comes up with articles discussing it, nothing about what Trump has said about it.

[GMDino]

(01-31-2017, 03:34 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Can you link to where he's said that? It's not that I don't believe you (really, it's not), it's just any Google search I do on the ban only comes up with articles discussing it, nothing about what Trump has said about it.

He talks about it in his interview with ABC.





Start it around 20:28 if the link doesn't do it.

[*PhilHos*]

(01-31-2017, 03:57 PM)GMDino Wrote: He talks about it in his interview with ABC.





Start it around 20:28 if the link doesn't do it.

Thanks. I forgot all about that interveiw (probably because I was annoyed by all the stories on Facebook about it).

Here's the transcript: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/transcript-abc-news-anchor-david-muir-interviews-president/story?id=45047602

I'm not going to copy and paste the whole thing, but here's what I think is pertinent to the ban:

Quote:DAVID MUIR: Who are we talking about? Is this the Muslim ban?

PRESIDENT TRUMP: We're talking about -- no it's not the Muslim ban. But it's countries that have tremendous terror. It's countries that we're going to be spelling out in a little while in the same speech. And it's countries that people are going to come in and cause us tremendous problems. Our country has enough problems without allowing people to come in who, in many cases or in some cases, are looking to do tremendous destruction.
(OVERTALK)
PRESIDENT TRUMP: You look at what's happening ...
DAVID MUIR: Which countries are we talking about?
PRESIDENT TRUMP: ... you'll be hearing about it in two hours because I have a whole list. You'll be very thrilled. You're looking at people that come in, in many cases, in some cases with evil intentions. I don't want that. They're ISIS. They're coming under false pretense. I don't want that.
I'm gonna be the president of a safe country. We have enough problems. Now I'll absolutely do safe zones in Syria for the people. I think that Europe has made a tremendous mistake by allowing these millions of people to go into Germany and various other countries. And all you have to do is take a look. It's -- it's a disaster what's happening over there.
I don't want that to happen here. Now with that being said, President Obama and Hillary Clinton have, and Kerry have allowed tens of thousands of people into our country. The FBI is now investigating more people than ever before having to do with terror. They -- and it's from the group of people that came in. So look, look, our country has a lot of problems. Believe me. I know what the problems are even better than you do. They're deep problems, they're serious problems. We don't need more.
DAVID MUIR: Let me ask you about some of the countries that won't be on the list, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia. Why are we going to allow people to come into this country ...
PRESIDENT TRUMP: You're going to see -- you're going to see. We're going to have extreme vetting in all cases. And I mean extreme. And we're not letting people in if we think there's even a little chance of some problem.
DAVID MUIR: Are you at all ...
(OVERTALK)
PRESIDENT TRUMP: We are excluding certain countries. But for other countries we're gonna have extreme vetting. It's going to be very hard to come in. Right now it's very easy to come in. It's gonna be very, very hard. I don't want terror in this country. You look at what happened in San Bernardino. You look at what happened all over. You look at what happened in the World Trade Center. Okay, I mean, take that as an example.

So, it seems that with the refugee part, as I thought, he was certainly thinking of what happened in Germany and elsewhere and the issues that these countries had with Syrian refugees.


As to the immigration side, it does indeed seem he was thinking that terrorism comes from those countries.

[Belsnickel]

(01-31-2017, 12:57 PM)PDub80 Wrote: https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&rlz=1C1TIGY_enUS721US721&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=election+polls+wrong


I showed you mine ^

Now you show me yours. Multiple links showing the pre-election polls were right, please. If you don't have a ton (like I do), then probably best to realize you're uninformed and take a back seat at this point.

Let me just pull up one of the more well known polling sources, because quite frankly I don't have time to pull up all of the polls that would show you just how uninformed you are on this. Let's visit 538's page on the 2016 presidential race and look at the information Nate Silver, everybody's favorite pollster punching bag, actually collected over the course of the election: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo

Now, the second graphic down is interactive, as many of these are, and it shows a line graph of the polling information from 08 June. You can switch it to the popular vote, the third choice there, and you can move your cursor all along the line to see what the polling was like during that time frame. What do you notice? Well, the final popular vote results were 48.2% Clinton and 46.1% Trump. That is within the margin of error on the majority of the polls conducted during that time. Did the polling get it wrong, or were people interpreting the data incorrectly?

Oh, for shits and giggles, let's look at another site that compiles this information: http://www.270towin.com/2016-polls-clinton-trump/national/

Here are the national polls, all of them, conducted during the election season. I won't get into each state because, well, some states have shitty pollsters like Roanoke College that can't predict the weather right now by walking outside. But, most of these national polls are conducted by reputable and established pollsters. What do you notice about those numbers? You have to click "All" to see more of them, just in case you don't notice them. The numbers aren't that far off on the popular vote for most of these polls and they are, once again, within the margin of error for the majority of them.

I don't need more than the two links to show you how uninformed you are because I like to look at data collections like this. I'm a political junky and a numbers guy, so these statistics are my cup of tea. I love looking at these trends. The problem is that people like to tell you "numbers don't lie." But they do, all the time. When you look at these numbers you have to then interpret what they mean, because there is more to it than the numbers themselves. That is where things went wrong for the people doing this during the election cycle. So pull up all the links you want with people saying the polls were wrong, the fact is that the polls were right, it was the people that read into the numbers wrong.

So do yourself a favor and educate yourself a little on the topic at hand beyond reading headlines before trying to act like you just schooled someone. You'll embarrass yourself when you encounter someone that actually understands what they are talking about.

[djam]

I agree with this guy.....none of our proposals even matter, because they arent helping and havent helped at all, ever. This is worth a look no matter what your political party is.....

[*bfine32*]

(01-31-2017, 03:06 PM)Griever Wrote: no its not, obamas was grounded in a specific threat at the time

trumps is grounded in brown people are bad and his right wing supporters are scared of muslims

Why didn't Trump ban the millions of brown muslims from Bandladesh?

[Aquapod770]

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/01/27/us/politics/refugee-muslim-executive-order-trump.html?_r=0&referer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F

Here's the actual transcript if anyone even feels like it would be a good idea to read it.

[Bengalzona]

(01-31-2017, 04:32 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Let me just pull up....

I thought for a second your comment was heading in this direction:

[Dill]

(01-31-2017, 12:51 PM)PDub80 Wrote: I find it cute and mindbogglingly funny that after this election someone would want to reference "polls" of anything, considering that they couldn't have been more inaccurate. Election results show nothing: zip, zero, zilch in the sense of what is being talked about. Better recheck your thought process on what convinces you your ideas are right about this stuff. Polls 

Well, I don't go by emoticons, that is for sure.

As Belsnickel has pointed out, the polls were not innacurate.  Election results show that one candidate was preferred over another. They reflect voter priorities. And combined with polls they certainly show something--e.g., if one candidates numbers go up after announcing he is for a ban on all Muslims.

Your alternative seems to be "talking" to different people, a very small and unscientific sample.

[Belsnickel]

(01-31-2017, 06:15 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: I thought for a second your comment was heading in this direction:

Well, in essence I did. I mean, statistics...

[Millhouse]

The only thing I can think of that would make me agree with this ban, is that our intelligence communities have picked up a lot of chatter out there in terror cells trying to come to the U.S.. If that is true, we probably wouldnt hear about it. But otherwise I dont understand the timing of it when there hasnt been a rash of terror attacks from people coming from those 7 countries. Since 9-11, Bush & Obama both have done a good job in doing their part in preventing attacks here at home overall.

[6andcounting]

(01-31-2017, 10:29 AM)xxlt Wrote: OK, I am sure you got it by now.

For those who didn't, here's the logic argument.

You said that if the ban pisses people off that kind of supports the ban in the first place. Well, that is wrong. I will explain it another way for those who still don't see it. (Helpful hint: this is a hypothetical scenario: the characters in it are not really sixandcounting and his wife.)

The reason why I asked is because you could have been trying to argue anything by just posting lists of things that are deadly, and I wanted to be able to understand and address your specific point. 

Most people get pissed off at one time or another, but to the point of joining a religious zealot mass murder cult is another thing. 

Trump justifies  his position by saying we know countries X,Y,Z have terror problems and we can't vet a innocent refugee from ISIS. If people previously not part of ISIS in their home countries come to America and get radicalized into to a sleeper lone wolf attack, that just gives Trump evidence that banning some countries is the best way to keep America safe.