Poll: do you approve the travel ban?

[halcyondays]

Since when isn't Europe part of the western hemisphere?

Since the world accepted the prime meridian at Greenwich, England.

 

[chrysler fanatic]

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

I'm not sure what that means. Proselytizing in the US has become somewhat of its own religion, with bullhorns and pamphlets that talk about eternal damnation and other things not congruous with the message of Jesus.
If trying to share the light of Christ by working to exhibit His love and kindness is unwanted, I'm not sure I know why.

 

[chrysler fanatic]

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.

I would have to agree with this. The question is not a yes or no question.
The administration has a constitutional right to do it, so in that case I approve 100%.
Do I approve in the spirit of it? No.

 

[umdoistressilvaquatro]

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

You asked "DO YOU APPROVE OF THE TRAVEL BAN"

I specified "Regarding the executive order signed by the american president blocking travel from 7 countries of muslim majority".

 

[Klingsor]

I'm not sure what that means. Proselytizing in the US has become somewhat of its own religion, with bullhorns and pamphlets that talk about eternal damnation and other things not congruous with the message of Jesus.
If trying to share the light of Christ by working to exhibit His love and kindness is unwanted, I'm not sure I know why.

Nothing wrong with showing love and kindness. But I find it problematic if, along with your outreach, you explicitly promote Christianity--to people who may feel they have to listen in order to qualify for good treatment.

 

[chrysler fanatic]

Nothing wrong with showing love and kindness. But I find it problematic if, along with your outreach, you explicitly promote Christianity--to people who may feel they have to listen in order to qualify for good treatment.

I wouldn't want them to feel that way.
If Jesus gave it to me for free, I should be giving it for free, as well. But I don't think an invitation to His love is out of line.
I do think that pressuring people, scaring people, and getting mad at people IS out of line.

 

[umdoistressilvaquatro]

I wouldn't want them to feel that way.
If Jesus gave it to me for free, I should be giving it for free, as well. But I don't think an invitation to His love is out of line.
I do think that pressuring people, scaring people, and getting mad at people IS out of line.

It is out of line to think immigration policies should take in consideration if people are from this or that religion, if might be able to share our religion with the, if they might welcome the teachings of Jesus or Buddha or Zoroaster, etc.

 

[KennF]

I specified "Regarding the executive order signed by the american president blocking travel from 7 countries of muslim majority".

Even this shows a complete bias. This is no where near as simple a question as you'd like to claim.

You would like a direct, easy, Approve/Disapprove, for whatever reason to support your opinion.

But, in general, I do not disapprove of the president's power to write EO's or even his right ("ugh") to set priorities. Where Congress fails to do it job, the power-vacuum is filled by executive action.

So, the question "Do you approve the travel ban?" even narrowed to the "executive order signed by the president blocking travel from 7 countries of muslim majority" is a very complex question.

Do I approve of the power grant from Congress to the Executive?
Do I approve of the necessity of having an EO on immigration?
Do I approve of the wording of this particular one?
Do I approve of the tone of this particular one?
Do I approve of the way it was implemented?
Do I approve of the timing?
Do I approve of the framing of the issue culminating with the EO, and, thus the interpretive meaning of the EO?
Do I approve of the inference of religion in the EO?
Do I approve of the selection of countries?
Do I approve of the limitation/ban of travel? From these seven countries? Not from any other countries?
Do I approve of the limitation/ban of immigrants? From these seven countries? Not from any other countries?
Do I approve of the limitation/ban of refugees?
Do I approve of the review of the vetting process contained in the EO?

All of this is rolled up into your short question... Do you approve the travel ban, with respect to the executive order signed...

 

[86Rick]

No, I don't approve of the ban. I think anyone and everyone should be able to live in America.

 

[umdoistressilvaquatro]

No, I don't approve of the ban. I think anyone and everyone should be able to live in America.

That has very little to do with the ban. How about you read the damm thing?

 

[Klingsor]

That has very little to do with the ban. How about you read the damm thing?

Trolls don't read.

 

[chicagosam]

Trolls don't read.

Has ICE made a raid and deportation again?

 

[chrisrobin]

Sorry guys
There is no travel ban
its all
FAKE NEWS!

 

[chicagosam]

Sorry guys
There is no travel ban
its all
FAKE NEWS!

Please get your alternative facts correct.

 

[Industrialsize]

Sorry guys
There is no travel ban
its all
FAKE NEWS!

Of course there is a travel/Muslim ban. It is under a restraining order placed by the 9th circuit court of appeals. They determined that harm would be caused by leaving the ban in place while it makes its way through the judiciary. The restraining order was placed by three judges who heard the case. If Trump wants to proceed, the next step would be to request a full hearing with all 9 judges of the 9th circuit. He has yet to do so.

 

[chrisrobin]

Of course there is a travel/Muslim ban. It is under a restraining order placed by the 9th circuit court of appeals. They determined that harm would be caused by leaving the ban in place while it makes its way through the judiciary. The restraining order was placed by three judges who heard the case. If Trump wants to proceed, the next step would be to request a full hearing with all 9 judges of the 9th circuit. He has yet to do so.

sorry, sarcasm didn't work - was just using a trumpism