Top UAE Diplomat supports Trumps temp travel ban
- Thread starter UCFKnight85
- Start date
Actions not rhetoric. The EO actually signed by Trump doesn't state that at all.
You're right, we may need DeVos. He's not banning just Muslims as your quoted alternative facts post implies, he's actually banning everyone from those specified countries.
Either way, it's a perception that is perpetuated due to the media. If it's wrong (which it is), the media should say it is. Instead, they're using it as a weapon in partisan warfare. By the time the courts reach a decision, the 60 days will be up and we will have wasted way to much taxpayer money on a "cause" that never was.
The media has said it was wrong, you all aren't listening. Clearly you all have no idea what Trump is actually stating, yet bashing the media. I posted a direct Trump quote and you all called it fake news, alternative facts and a lie.
It is all of those. That was not said when he signed the EO and it is not in the EO. He signed an EO based on a list put together by Obama and Congress.
I didn't realize your previous post was a quote, but I found it and it's from a Trump Campaign press release in December 2015. Fair enough. Both sides are spewing rhetoric; par for the course.
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-...mp-statement-on-preventing-muslim-immigration
Leave Obama out of it. Obama had no intention of using the list to ban people from the country.
Then what was the purpose of the list? To let more people in from those countries?
The Facts
The only country actually named in the order is Syria, which was also subject to an undefined ban on refugee admissions. The other six countries — Iraq, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Yemen and Somalia — are not specifically named. Instead, the order refers to sections of the U.S. code:
“I hereby proclaim that the immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States of aliens from countries referred to in section 217(a)(12) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12), would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and I hereby suspend entry into the United States, as immigrants and nonimmigrants, of such persons for 90 days from the date of this order.”
This is the first clue that the countries had already been subject to previous restrictions. But, as you will see, Trump used this legal platform and took it to an new level.
That doesn't matter. The MSLM doesn't care about facts. They'll just run with it and have a three paragraph retraction at the end of their paper tomorrow. Obama and Co said you can keep your doctor and plan if you wanted, still haven't seen a peep about that from the MSLM in six years. Fake news.
I hated Trump but I'm glad he opened my eyes to the corruption in this country. I was a sheeple conservative that just gave into being called all kinds of names for fear of being called more names just like McCain and Romney. He fought back and won.
I'm even arguing with family over politics now. Clinton, Obama and Sanders gave us a lot of ammunition with their namecalling. I convinced my CNN brainwashed mom to turn on Fox every once in a while and she voted for Obama and Hillary. She actually told me she appreciated me finally harrasing her. Now I've just to work on my union loving family in Chicago.
Hell, I joined Twitter for the first time two weeks ago because of Trump. That's the only way you can get the truth from this administration before it's filtered by the MSLM.
Wow, long rant about nothing.
Careful. Some coward left winger in a mob will surely come to sucker punch you
The media hates us, cause we tell lies everyday,. Crime rate is at its highest in 47 years!
The sooner you stop being a sheeple the better your life will be. Listen to the source. Not the filtered version of the source. When did MSNBC or CNN ever verbally assault the press secretary over Benghazi, Keep your doctor/plan, Fast and Furious, hundreds of drone bombings, inaction in Ukraine.
It's mind boggling that Russia is suddenly an enormous unbelievably huge threat to our country when Obama did nothing about them invading an ally and killing hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians in Syria.
MAC was one of those people joining Obama in mocking Romney in 2012 when he correctly asserted that Russia is our biggest geopolitical foe.
Romney was right on Russia and Iran. Obama was such a failure in foreign policy, yet libs suddenly care about it and education and the national debt. Obama sent more troops into Iraq, Obama sent more troops into Afghanistan. Romney would have been a great SOS, I hope Tillerson can do as well.
I agree with this. Furthermore, even though he was an entrenched cog in the corrupt, political machine, all things remaining the same, I actually think he would have made a decent president.
The sad part was, even at that time, it was pretty damn obvious. (Maybe it just appeared obvious to me and others of my generation because we grew up during the cold war and have an inherent distrust of the Russians.)
It was not a long rant about nothing. I liked your post. You're spot on and I think it describes a huge chunk of the population, obviously. (although I really don't understand why it took Trump to make you start to open your eyes).
I started seeing the blatant corruption of the political establishment and it's collusion with the MSLM back during W. I started becoming disillusioned with the Republican party when MCCain was nominated. When Trump started to point out the blatant hypocrisy and corruption of the Washington establishment and the media, it became even more clear how really fvcked up the whole system was.
When the Republican party started doing everything within their power in an attempt to keep Trump from being nominated, I really figured it out. My vote for Trump and his huuuuuuuuuge middle finger was simply a vote against the status quo in hopes that he would stir that pot. Hopefully, it will all pan out.
There's no question Russia is the greatest Geopolitical foe we face. They're the only country (other than us) that can project power outside of their region. For all the talk about China, they're a regional power with global economic strength. They don't project power outside of their region.
All that said, there's no reason we can't be on better terms with Russia. If they want to take on the burden and the cost to project power to a region, we should let them. But we'd have to put bilateral agreements in place to draw the line on what is acceptable. Ideally, these agreements would come through NATO with Russia and not just the US with Russia.
All that said, there's no reason we can't be on better terms with Russia. If they want to take on the burden and the cost to project power to a region, we should let them. But we'd have to put bilateral agreements in place to draw the line on what is acceptable. Ideally, these agreements would come through NATO with Russia and not just the US with Russia.
There's a difference between imposing a red line versus a bilateral agreement. The Russians never agreed to the red line so it was never going to work.
In the neighborhood...ala Syria, which he of course blew that "red line" threat too...as Syria was never punished for killing 1,500 with chemical weapons, which was Obama's "red line" threat.
He was Obama's red line comments from August 2012:
Obama, Aug. 20, 2012: I have, at this point, not ordered military engagement in the situation. But the point that you made about chemical and biological weapons is critical. That’s an issue that doesn’t just concern Syria; it concerns our close allies in the region, including Israel. It concerns us. We cannot have a situation where chemical or biological weapons are falling into the hands of the wrong people.
We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized. That would change my calculus. That would change my equation.
… We have communicated in no uncertain terms with every player in the region that that’s a red line for us and that there would be enormous consequences if we start seeing movement on the chemical weapons front or the use of chemical weapons. That would change my calculations significantly.
----------------------------------------------------------
Info today shows that Obama didn't honor his red line because at the time, the US was already in negotiations with Iran...as Iran was going to cut off talks if Obama fell thru with his threat against Syria.
Obama reportedly declined to enforce red line in Syria after Iran threatened to back out of nuclear deal
http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-red-line-syria-iran-2016-8
It was at this point in time, 8 years ago, when you all were disowning Bush due to his 2 wars and bailouts, both of which were drastically reducing the national debt.
I recall you all telling us to stop blaming the previous administration. Very interesting.
I recall you all telling us to stop blaming the previous administration. Very interesting.
I'm not blaming Obama for anything. Just pointing out how smug and ignorant he was, along with the entire party, and how utterly wrong they got everything related to Russia. It's highly ironic watching Democrats try to act like Russia hawks when just 4 years ago they completely laughed off the notion that they even mattered.
Frankly I'm content to let the Europeans deal with Russia if they really are that big of a threat. Maybe the 80% of EU nations that don't spend at least 2% of defense on GDP will finally do so.
Incorrect sanctions were implemented for their crimea actions from what I recall and we supported the rebels in Syria. Some would argue China is still a greater threat, due to Russia's wealth being dependent on oil, but I honestly don't know.
If I was to classify the world stage, it'd be:
1. USA - Exerting influence everywhere in the world through economic and military actions. Military bases on every continent.
-space-
-space-
-space-
2. Russia - Exerting direct military influence in one location out of their region. Exerting influence around the world but not through direct economic or military force (verbal saber rattling).
-space-
3. China - Economic powerhouse (rivals US and EU) and strong military (rivals Russia but not quite the US), but does not exert influence beyond their regional sphere. Does not show intentions of exerting influence beyond their region.
How would you rank them based on economic influence as opposed to military?
Specific to the 3 originally mentioned, I'd have it like this but Russia is really like 4 or 5 behind the EU and UK (post Brexit).
1. USA - The USA and China are close but the USA still has a 60% larger nominal GDP and a more diverse import/export trade (only 9% of US exports go to China, but 18% of China's exports go to the US). The US imports over $2 Trillion per year which makes the US the primary market for many countries. Due to this, we can impose our will on most countries because the economic repercussions from sanctions/tariffs is severe.
2. China - If you look at GDP normalized for Purchasing Power Parity (PPP), then you can make an argument for China to be #1. Personally, I think removing exchange rates (which PPP does) is correct for assessing economic size but not for economic influence. Central banking is integral to international commerce and the supply/demand of money the central banks control affect the exchange rates and subsequently the ability for a country to conduct international trade. For China to get to #1, they need to reduce their reliance on the US consumer to buy their exports and update their monetary policy.
-space-
-space-
-space-
-space-
-space-
3. Russia - The problem for Russia is that they rely far too much on their adversary, the EU. More than 50% of Russian imports come from the EU and more than 50% exports go to the EU. The can't afford a significant altercation with the EU and can't allow the EU to expand to former Soviet States which furthers their import/export dilemma. They're in a rock and a hard place and that's not even taking into consideration that most of their exports are in the Oil & Gas sector (not diversified).
