Poll: do you approve the travel ban?

Do you approve the travel ban?


  • Total voters
    55
D

deleted15807

Guest
[
It depends. Most of me wants as many muslim refugees as we can get because we have an amazing opportunity to share the light of Jesus with them by being good and kind neighbors.
The other part of me knows that the practicality of taking refugees is difficult. And if it truly is a temporary ban until the vetting process can be reviewed, then I don't see it as a big deal.

Sorry, I couldn't answer in a yes or no context.

You do know he left out Saudi Arabia? The country that gave us 15 of the 19 Sept 11 hijackers. The question is why?

Saudi Arabia and Egypt are excluded from Trump's ban. Why?
 
1

185248

Guest
That's not exactly true anymore.

View attachment 644768

Where Does America Get Oil? You May Be Surprised

View attachment 644773



Well his moves also have to pass legal muster as we've seen. It's clear President Bannon didn't check with White House counsel before rolling this out.

I read up on US shale oil, fracking. It's cost to the US envioronment
That's not exactly true anymore.

View attachment 644768

Where Does America Get Oil? You May Be Surprised

View attachment 644773



Well his moves also have to pass legal muster as we've seen. It's clear President Bannon didn't check with White House counsel before rolling this out.

So does this mean we can expect instability to arise in Canada :)?

Wow, as if Africa is not already unstable. Many small nations, many poor people living a meagre existence governed by corrupt despot governments with deals done with US and other western oil corporations.

Now, tell me where all this has been done before? Am I surprised? No. As long as there is a corrupt leadership to bribe for one reason or another. How long do you think it will be before the US needs to send troops and it's allies back to Africa to fight Warlords to protect corrupt government deals?

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Klingsor

Worshipped Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2011
Posts
10,888
Media
4
Likes
11,642
Points
293
Location
Champaign (Illinois, United States)
Sexuality
80% Straight, 20% Gay
Gender
Male
It depends. Most of me wants as many muslim refugees as we can get because we have an amazing opportunity to share the light of Jesus with them by being good and kind neighbors.

As long as we bear in mind that being a truly good and kind neighbor means no unwanted proselytizing.
 

KennF

Legendary Member
Joined
May 3, 2010
Posts
2,185
Media
9
Likes
1,964
Points
258
Location
Florida (United States)
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
It depends. Most of me wants as many muslim refugees as we can get because we have an amazing opportunity to share the light of Jesus with them by being good and kind neighbors.
The other part of me knows that the practicality of taking refugees is difficult. And if it truly is a temporary ban until the vetting process can be reviewed, then I don't see it as a big deal.

Sorry, I couldn't answer in a yes or no context.

Unfortunately, you're correct. You can't answer this question in a yes or no context. The poll is lumping multiple issues together.

This "travel ban", is more than its quick title. "Approv[al]" of it is a little vague, since it includes the general concept of a "travel ban", "refugee ban", horrible implementation, illegal/unlawful detentions, poor political optics, etc...

Even if I agreed with a freeze on new immigrant visa approvals for 120 days, that wouldn't be the same as approving this 'travel ban'.
Even if I agreed with a freeze on refugee resettlement, that wouldn't be the same as approving this "travel ban".
Even if I agreed with the details and intent, the method (via Executive Order), is questionable.

Yet, saying I disagree with the 'travel ban', doesn't help since it lacks the specificity of which part(s) of it I believe is incorrect.

As I said to my husband, the very moment I learned of it, the Executive Order is a disaster as written, announced, and implemented. It denies lawful entry to people; it illegally detains people without counsel; it strands people all over the world creating a humanitarian crisis; and sends the wrong message.

The full value of Trump's campaign promise could have been accomplished by simply requiring that those with approved visa's and travel papers be allowed to complete their travel (within 10, 15, 30 days), and that all pending or new visa applications go through new screening effective immediately. That anyone with credible, specific evidence be denied entry (which is current law).

As written, my husband was subject to detention. He is an American born and raised citizen who has traveled around the world, as a Flight Attendant, and has passport visas and stamps from some of the banned countries. Just as the Norway's Ex-Premier (Prime Minister) who was detained/denied entry under a diplomatic passport because of an Iranian diplomatic trip in 2014.

So... you're right, regardless of your feelings, this is more than a "Yes" or "No".
 
  • Like
Reactions: chrysler fanatic

chrisrobin

Mythical Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2016
Posts
10,302
Media
0
Likes
26,623
Points
183
Location
Bournemouth (England)
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Regarding the executive order signed by the american president blocking travel from 7 countries of muslim majority.
The rights and wrongs of this presidential order are for the people in the USA to decide, as I understand it over 50% are in favour.
It is not for other countries to try and tell the USA how to deal with its foreign affairs.
Yes indeed other countries might have travelling public affected, so, through the proper channels object.
The laws of the USA are those that will prevail for a short time till they are changed to get in line with current presidential thinking.
Meanwhile a huge gift has been given to 7 countries who will see this as America being against them - and their religion. This will fester dislike and unrest and be nectar to those enlisting supporters to do harm to non Muslim Counties.
 

TexanStar

Worshipped Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2014
Posts
10,496
Media
0
Likes
14,978
Points
183
Location
Fort Worth (Texas, United States)
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
The rights and wrongs of this presidential order are for the people in the USA to decide, as I understand it over 50% are in favour..

People are still welcome to comment just as we comment on perceived injustices committed in other countries.

As for support, there's some polls showing slight majority in support of the ban, and others showing slight majority disapproving of the ban. The reality is probably somewhere around 50/50.

With that said, civil rights and national security matters both supercede popular opinion. This executive order put in place a clash between both of those, so it'll get decided in the courts.

GOP is arguing that National security is the most important factor and is above the law period (suggesting that the courts have no business interfering in matters they consider national security) because executive branch has access to confidential information that the other branches do not.

Opposition is arguing that firstly, judicial branch always has a check on the executive branch to prevent the kind of fascist behavior that can easily be enacted under the banner of national security, and additionally that the GOP claims of national security are disingenuous (on the basis of a lot of commentary made by Trump and on the basis of how the ban is actually applied (not pursuing the actual sources of terrorism on US soil here, for example, completely ignoring Saudi Arabia).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Klingsor

phonehome

Superior Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2006
Posts
3,896
Media
0
Likes
4,277
Points
343
Gender
Male
It is pretty simple all or most of this would/could had been avoided or minimized If the two steves when they wrote this EO had made it clearly state that both "green card holders" as well as US citzens who were for what ever reason in those 7 countries and returning were not subject to this order in any way shaper or form and also just had kept it simple and said it was the 7 countries period and NOT put in put in that "carve out" for those "minority religions" which anyone with 2 brain cells knows that in their minds that meant "Christians". We know this because all during the campaign when trump spoke of it it was always that ISIS was "chopping off the heads of "Christians" and then he had to go on CBN and we all know what that "C" stands for and bloviate about it and confirn just what "the code words" were.

But this is just the Donald Trump we have seen for decades he always always always seemingly as if he just can not help himself has to add that extra little bit when it was not at all needed and in every case that last little bit is a flat out lie or at the very least "a problem"

Just during the campaign a few examples;

I got a letter from the NFL

No Donald you did NOT and there was no reason for you to have made that claim. If you wanted to complain about the debates being up against Sunday Night Football, fine that was probably and legitimate complaint and you could have complained and left it at that. You could have even said "I heard" and we all know how he "hears things" that people, people in general were complaining or NFL fans in general or "the NFL" what ever that may mean but no he had to go that extra mile and claim "he", as in himself not "we" as in "the campaign" had got a "letter: no just a "message" which could mean many things, a phone call, a voice message or an E-mail or even text message. No as if he just could not help it it had to be "I got a letter from the NFL"

Earlier in the year at his "veterans funds raiser" he had when he blew off that debate he made the claim that he had ALREADY "donated a million dollars of his own money", Now did he need to make that claim at all? No he did not. Could he have said he was "going to be donating", and left it at that ? Yes he could have said that but no he had to go that extra mile and claim that he already had when in fact he had not and only did months later when the Washington Post was on his ass about it and then when he did it was hardly a "bonafide veterans charity/group like say the VFW or DAV or "the wounded warrior project" no it was what most people would call a "law enforcement charity group" with somewhat of tie to "veterans" and gee what do you know the director CEO what ever the title of this group just so happens to be none other that one James Kalstrom who then all the sudden was all over Fox going on and on about all of Clinton's supposed "scandals" and was widely believed to be the HMFIC of "Trumpland in the FBI" the epicenter of which that the New York office of the FBI

Then we have all his failed business from the late 90's and early 00's , Trump Steaks, Trump water, Trump Vodka, Trump what ever. In every case in his initial launch sales pitch he almost always had to end up the sales pitch with a claim about how "he was going to give all the "profits" to "charity" " because a supposed billionaire did not need the money and knowing that none of these mob style "bustouts" would ever make dollar one so it was meaningless from that standpoint and on the odd chance they did makea dollar or two the books could be manipulated to show otherwise and on the even odder chance that some "profit" was till left the "charity" would be the "Trump Foundation" which Donald could use to buy Paintings of himself, settle legal bills against himself or Trump INC or buy off pols like Pam Bondy
 

TexanStar

Worshipped Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2014
Posts
10,496
Media
0
Likes
14,978
Points
183
Location
Fort Worth (Texas, United States)
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
People are still welcome to comment just as we comment on perceived injustices committed in other countries.

As for support, there's some polls showing slight majority in support of the ban, and others showing slight majority disapproving of the ban. The reality is probably somewhere around 50/50.

With that said, civil rights and national security matters both supercede popular opinion. This executive order put in place a clash between both of those, so it'll get decided in the courts.

GOP is arguing that National security is the most important factor and is above the law period (suggesting that the courts have no business interfering in matters they consider national security) because executive branch has access to confidential information that the other branches do not.

Opposition is arguing that firstly, judicial branch always has a check on the executive branch to prevent the kind of fascist behavior that can easily be enacted under the banner of national security, and additionally that the GOP claims of national security are disingenuous (on the basis of a lot of commentary made by Trump and on the basis of how the ban is actually applied (not pursuing the actual sources of terrorism on US soil here, for example, completely ignoring Saudi Arabia).

Trump just lost his emergency stay request.

He not only lost it, but lost it in a unanimous ruling with even the conservative judge on the court ruling against him just as the Republican appointed judge in state court did.

Fuck yeah!

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/09/politics/travel-ban-9th-circuit-ruling/index.html

This isn't the appeal itself. This was a request to stay the lower court ruling while they file their appeal, but for now the end result is the same... no piece of shit blanket travel ban.
 

ozwestcoastboy

LPSG Legend
Joined
May 28, 2004
Posts
28,392
Media
0
Likes
454,620
Points
768
Location
Perth (Western Australia, Australia)
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Trump just lost his emergency stay request.

He not only lost it, but lost it in a unanimous ruling with even the conservative judge on the court ruling against him just as the Republican appointed judge in state court did.

Fuck yeah!

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/09/politics/travel-ban-9th-circuit-ruling/index.html

This isn't the appeal itself. This was a request to stay the lower court ruling while they file their appeal, but for now the end result is the same... no piece of shit blanket travel ban.
And Trump's hissy-fit tweet meltdown in response:
upload_2017-2-10_8-25-31.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: deleted15807

halcyondays

Worshipped Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2014
Posts
6,439
Media
2
Likes
10,513
Points
208
Location
US
Sexuality
80% Straight, 20% Gay
Gender
Male
Whether this evening's court decision holds or not, Trump is using this executive order so he can blame the courts if any attacks happen in the future. His game is to blame. His m.o. is to absolve himself of all responsibility.
 

Novaboy

Superior Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2005
Posts
6,258
Media
5
Likes
8,616
Points
343
Location
Canada
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
The ban was always just for optics anyway. I doubt that anyone with half a brain really thinks that his ban was stopping a steady flow of terrorists. Like has been pointed out, more Americans are killed by armed toddlers than terrorists (of any ilk)
 

TexanStar

Worshipped Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2014
Posts
10,496
Media
0
Likes
14,978
Points
183
Location
Fort Worth (Texas, United States)
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
The ban was always just for optics anyway. I doubt that anyone with half a brain really thinks that his ban was stopping a steady flow of terrorists. Like has been pointed out, more Americans are killed by armed toddlers than terrorists (of any ilk)

And when it comes to terrorists, they've been home grown and foreign influenced for the last decade. Ban was only going to increase the occurrence of radicalization.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ozwestcoastboy
D

deleted15807

Guest
Really really good news. As the judges wrote : The judges wrote that any suggestion that they could not “runs contrary to the fundamental structure of our constitutional democracy.” The Trump Administration is going to make the Bush Administration look like mensa. And the best part was it was unanimous.

Appeals court rules 3 to 0 against Trump on travel ban
 
  • Like
Reactions: ozwestcoastboy

umdoistressilvaquatro

Legendary Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2016
Posts
1,960
Media
0
Likes
1,625
Points
173
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
It depends. Most of me wants as many muslim refugees as we can get because we have an amazing opportunity to share the light of Jesus with them by being good and kind neighbors.
The other part of me knows that the practicality of taking refugees is difficult. And if it truly is a temporary ban until the vetting process can be reviewed, then I don't see it as a big deal.

Sorry, I couldn't answer in a yes or no context.
My question is regarding the executive order, there is no reason to answer that "it depends". You already know on which terms the travel ban will take action, unless you haven't read the executive order.
 

ozwestcoastboy

LPSG Legend
Joined
May 28, 2004
Posts
28,392
Media
0
Likes
454,620
Points
768
Location
Perth (Western Australia, Australia)
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Really really good news. As the judges wrote : The judges wrote that any suggestion that they could not “runs contrary to the fundamental structure of our constitutional democracy.” The Trump Administration is going to make the Bush Administration look like mensa. And the best part was it was unanimous.

Appeals court rules 3 to 0 against Trump on travel ban
Yes, and Hillary's tweet was simply this: 3-0. Very clever!
 
  • Like
Reactions: deleted15807

KennF

Legendary Member
Joined
May 3, 2010
Posts
2,185
Media
9
Likes
1,964
Points
258
Location
Florida (United States)
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
My question is regarding the executive order, there is no reason to answer that "it depends". You already know on which terms the travel ban will take action, unless you haven't read the executive order.

Sorry, but I disagree. It does depend. Even the question of the EO is broad and many issues rolled onto those four corners of the paper.

I am not opposed to the administration wanting extra questions asked. He can ask as many questions as he'd like.
I am not opposed to the administration wanting more information on the actual refugees being placed, within reason.
And I am not opposed to giving preferential treatment on asylum/refugees from all countries where they are a threatened minority, which would include Sunni in Shia countries, and Shia in Sunni countries, as well as Christians in Islamic areas and Jews in Christian areas, etc..., etc..., etc... A truly religious-neutral aim. Not just from these seven countries.

However, this EO was overly broad, subject to a very wide range of interpretations and violated basic Due Process rights. It also has an as-applied challenge to the Establishment Clause.

In true Trump fashion, it was a bombastic statement issued for shock value, instead of thoughtful and deliberate policy making choices.

This Executive Order, I don't approve. The underlying issues and approach I could approve, depending on what their aim and goal "really" is (something Trump is NOT well known for clarifying).

So, it can depend... what are the real aims of the EO?

(a) getting their arms around the vetting process and trying to make sure that security clearance is generally reasonable?;
(b) a Muslim Ban?
(c) Something else?
 

chrisrobin

Mythical Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2016
Posts
10,302
Media
0
Likes
26,623
Points
183
Location
Bournemouth (England)
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Sorry, but I disagree. It does depend. Even the question of the EO is broad and many issues rolled onto those four corners of the paper.

I am not opposed to the administration wanting extra questions asked. He can ask as many questions as he'd like.
I am not opposed to the administration wanting more information on the actual refugees being placed, within reason.
And I am not opposed to giving preferential treatment on asylum/refugees from all countries where they are a threatened minority, which would include Sunni in Shia countries, and Shia in Sunni countries, as well as Christians in Islamic areas and Jews in Christian areas, etc..., etc..., etc... A truly religious-neutral aim. Not just from these seven countries.

However, this EO was overly broad, subject to a very wide range of interpretations and violated basic Due Process rights. It also has an as-applied challenge to the Establishment Clause.

In true Trump fashion, it was a bombastic statement issued for shock value, instead of thoughtful and deliberate policy making choices.

This Executive Order, I don't approve. The underlying issues and approach I could approve, depending on what their aim and goal "really" is (something Trump is NOT well known for clarifying).

So, it can depend... what are the real aims of the EO?

(a) getting their arms around the vetting process and trying to make sure that security clearance is generally reasonable?;
(b) a Muslim Ban?
(c) Something else?
C
being in charge
regardless
 
  • Like
Reactions: KennF

umdoistressilvaquatro

Legendary Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2016
Posts
1,960
Media
0
Likes
1,625
Points
173
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
This Executive Order, I don't approve.
That's the only thing that is relevant for this thread. I didn't ask you about muslim immigration, about introducing muslims to Jesus, about asking questions to people traveling, having a vetting process, what do you think about refugees, etc. I asked your opinion on the executive order. Is a simple question if you maintain objectivity.
 

KennF

Legendary Member
Joined
May 3, 2010
Posts
2,185
Media
9
Likes
1,964
Points
258
Location
Florida (United States)
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
That's the only thing that is relevant for this thread. I didn't ask you about muslim immigration, about introducing muslims to Jesus, about asking questions to people traveling, having a vetting process, what do you think about refugees, etc. I asked your opinion on the executive order. Is a simple question if you maintain objectivity.

First, that WASN'T your question. Look at your poll and you'll see.

You asked "DO YOU APPROVE OF THE TRAVEL BAN"

And what you're asking now is "DO YOU APPROVE OF THE EXECUTIVE ORDER" Without narrowing down to AS WRITTEN, or, AS ANNOUNCED, or AS IMPLEMENTED. Three totally separate issues.

You're showing your confirmation bias, again.

Second, you just took my words out of context. That's not the first time you've done that, but is the reason I didn't respond to this thread earlier. This particular wording of this particular Executive Order is poor and I wouldn't have approved, however, I would approve of a similar order accounting for the issues I described.

Next time, If you want a simple yes or no, then ask a clearly defined question.