Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Uk Debate Mk 2, the UK's liveliest political and social debate site.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Liberals cry wolf
Topic Started: Mar 8 2017, 09:11 PM (669 Views)
Cymru
Alt-Right
[ *  *  *  * ]
After weeks of coverage about a rise in anti-semitism in America with bomb threats against Jewish centres and the vandalising of Jewish cemeteries given particular prominence, the liberal commentariat decided to link these and similar incidents to Trump, arguing that his rise to power has created a climate of hate which has facilitated this rise in anti-semitism, and demanding that he speak out against this.

It now turns out that the bomb threats were from a disgruntled black guy who broke up with a girlfriend, whilst the cemetery vandalism has been put down to "environmental causes" (i.e. soil erosion and lack of maintenance).

Just don't expect weeks of coverage about this lack of anti-semitism and demands that liberals apologise for crying wolf.

Indeed, using these non-incidents as his motivation New York State Governor Andrew Cuomo has promised $25 million of public funds to Jewish institutions and the establishment of an "Anti-Semitism Task Force" in the New York Police Department.

Presumably we will be seeing the arrest of some soil soon.
Edited by Cymru, Mar 11 2017, 01:16 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
"the liberal commentariat decided to link these incidents to Trump"

Link please
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tigger
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Cymru
Mar 8 2017, 09:11 PM
After weeks of coverage about a rise in anti-semitism in America with bomb threats against Jewish centres and the vandalising of Jewish cemeteries given particular prominence, the liberal commentariat decided to link these incidents to Trump, arguing that his rise to power has created a climate of hate, and demanding that he speak out against this.

After reading that I'm guessing you've not worked out the principles of cause and effect.

Having a fuckwit in the White House who dribbles out garbage and bigotry on a near daily basis has led many people, (who might otherwise be having sex with a relative or shooting critters) to believe that their half arsed ideas and willingness to blame others for being dumb is now an accepted way to tackle the problems they face.

It ain't.
Edited by Tigger, Mar 8 2017, 11:47 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RoofGardener
Member Avatar
Lord of Plantpots
[ *  *  *  * ]
Garbage and Bigotry ?

Hmm.... the first is subjective, but.. Bigotry ?
Could you give me an example of Trump making bigoted statements since becoming president ?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RoofGardener
Member Avatar
Lord of Plantpots
[ *  *  *  * ]
I blundered across another intersting example of the "liberal commentariate" .. sort of.

The BBC has been heavily pushing the "common purpose" narrative that Donald Trump's executive order is banning "Muslims" from entering the country. (they always describe the listed terrorist nations as being "Muslim Majority" nations, without evening mentioning the State Department terrorism list that underpins the EO).

So, when a chap from India was denied a US visa, the headline was "... Kashmir Muslim athlete denied US visa... ". And yes, the story implied that this might be part of Donald Trump's "policy".
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-38824358

HOWEVER.. when the SAME chap (who eventually made it to the USA) was subsequently arrested and charged in the US with sex with a minor, suddenly his religion disappeared.

"Tanveer Hussain: Indian athlete held over sex abuse in US"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-39138083

Now you see it, now you don't !
Edited by RoofGardener, Mar 9 2017, 09:20 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
The clue is in the first link

"She said she was sorry, but that she could not help us due to the current US policy,"

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Happy Hornet
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
So is it only liberals who are concerned about anti-Semitism?

If so that's very revealing.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Malum Unus
Member Avatar
Hater of Political Correctness and Legalese
[ *  *  * ]
RoofGardener
Mar 9 2017, 08:49 AM
I blundered across another intersting example of the "liberal commentariate" .. sort of.

The BBC has been heavily pushing the "common purpose" narrative that Donald Trump's executive order is banning "Muslims" from entering the country. (they always describe the listed terrorist nations as being "Muslim Majority" nations, without evening mentioning the State Department terrorism list that underpins the EO).

So, when a chap from India was denied a US visa, the headline was "... Kashmir Muslim athlete denied US visa... ". And yes, the story implied that this might be part of Donald Trump's "policy".
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-38824358

HOWEVER.. when the SAME chap (who eventually made it to the USA) was subsequently arrested and charged in the US with sex with a minor, suddenly his religion disappeared.

"Tanveer Hussain: Indian athlete held over sex abuse in US"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-39138083

Now you see it, now you don't !


Well, who'd have thought it... The BBC showing bias. /sarcasm
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
Malum Unus
Mar 9 2017, 10:46 AM
RoofGardener
Mar 9 2017, 08:49 AM
I blundered across another intersting example of the "liberal commentariate" .. sort of.

The BBC has been heavily pushing the "common purpose" narrative that Donald Trump's executive order is banning "Muslims" from entering the country. (they always describe the listed terrorist nations as being "Muslim Majority" nations, without evening mentioning the State Department terrorism list that underpins the EO).

So, when a chap from India was denied a US visa, the headline was "... Kashmir Muslim athlete denied US visa... ". And yes, the story implied that this might be part of Donald Trump's "policy".
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-38824358

HOWEVER.. when the SAME chap (who eventually made it to the USA) was subsequently arrested and charged in the US with sex with a minor, suddenly his religion disappeared.

"Tanveer Hussain: Indian athlete held over sex abuse in US"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-39138083

Now you see it, now you don't !


Well, who'd have thought it... The BBC showing bias. /sarcasm
:nono: see post 6
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Malum Unus
Member Avatar
Hater of Political Correctness and Legalese
[ *  *  * ]
You're missing the point, Steve.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
Malum Unus
Mar 9 2017, 12:04 PM
You're missing the point, Steve.
No I am not. If the immigration official said it was the muslim ban that barred him then the BBC were entitled to report it as such until such time as other information arose

But hey ho the BBC persecutors never listen to facts do they?

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RoofGardener
Member Avatar
Lord of Plantpots
[ *  *  *  * ]
Umm.. that wasn't my point SteveK, although what you say is interesting.

The immigration official made a comment about "US policy". However, India was NOT on the list of countries mentioned in the Executive Order. Accordingly, either the Immigration official mis-spoke herself, or she was referring to existing Immigration policy. Either way, there is no logical link to anything that Donald Trump has done. Indeed, in your post above you use the term "Muslim ban" (as have several newspapers and commentators, although not - to their credit - the BBC ). It is NOT a muslim ban; it is a ban on immigration from seven specific countries highlighted by the State Department during the Barak Osama presidency.

My real point, however, related to the fact that when Tanveer Hussain was regarded as a victim , his religion was highlighted. Indeed, it was in the headline of the BBC story.

When he was subsequently arrested and charged with a crime, however, his religion suddenly disappears.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
marybrown
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Did they make him eat a pork chop??
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
RoofGardener
Mar 9 2017, 12:31 PM
Umm.. that wasn't my point SteveK, although what you say is interesting.

The immigration official made a comment about "US policy". However, India was NOT on the list of countries mentioned in the Executive Order. Accordingly, either the Immigration official mis-spoke herself, or she was referring to existing Immigration policy. Either way, there is no logical link to anything that Donald Trump has done. Indeed, in your post above you use the term "Muslim ban" (as have several newspapers and commentators, although not - to their credit - the BBC ). It is NOT a muslim ban; it is a ban on immigration from seven specific countries highlighted by the State Department during the Barak Osama presidency.

My real point, however, related to the fact that when Tanveer Hussain was regarded as a victim , his religion was highlighted. Indeed, it was in the headline of the BBC story.

When he was subsequently arrested and charged with a crime, however, his religion suddenly disappears.
But the point is if the immigration official used the anti muslim policy to bar him then it was fair reporting

And contrary to your belief it is known that US immigration officials were using that order to bar people from all sorts of countries in addition to the listed ones. So that part of your theory does not work either

It would actually have been very wrong of the BBC to have suppressed what was the reason given at the time he was barred. To accuse them of bias for responsible reporting is somewhat perverse RG

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RoofGardener
Member Avatar
Lord of Plantpots
[ *  *  *  * ]
that's a kind-of circular logic, SteveK.

You appear to be starting with the assumption that DT had created an "anti-muslim" executive order, and interpreting everything subsequent to that accordingly. This is particularly prevalent when you suggest that ".. very wrong of the BBC to have suppressed what was the reason .... " ? What evidence do we have to ascribe that particular "reason" ?

You see, DT's EO focused on the existing list of countries with high risk of "exporting terrorism", as drafted by the State Department under the previous president. Surely this is NOT an indication of "anti-Muslim" attitudes on behalf of Barak Osama, or of the State Department ? And if it WAS, then why did Barak exclude the other 70% (ish.. by population) of Muslim countries ?

Also, can you elaborate on what you mean when you suggest that the EO was "...used by US immigration officials.. to bar people from all sorts of countries" ?

Which countries ?

Yeah.. OK.. I know.. you can't trawl through the entirety of all immigration applications made in all US embassies for the last few months... that information is not even in the public domain. However, having made the statement, do you have any specific examples, or is this a "gut feeling" ?

There's nothing WRONG with that, but we have to differentiate between "opinion" and "evidence" ?
Edited by RoofGardener, Mar 9 2017, 08:53 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
RoofGardener
Mar 9 2017, 08:45 PM
that's a kind-of circular logic, SteveK.

You appear to be starting with the assumption that DT had created an "anti-muslim" executive order . .
It's not an assumption, it's a proven fact as stated by the US Federal and Appeals courts
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tigger
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
RoofGardener
Mar 9 2017, 08:36 AM
Garbage and Bigotry ?

Hmm.... the first is subjective, but.. Bigotry ?
Could you give me an example of Trump making bigoted statements since becoming president ?
Apparently a lot of Mexicans are drug dealers and rapists.

No wonder they need a wall!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tigger
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Malum Unus
Mar 9 2017, 12:04 PM
You're missing the point, Steve.
Really? Funny how right wing common sense morphs into bigotry when it's spoken by the left.

;-)

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RoofGardener
Member Avatar
Lord of Plantpots
[ *  *  *  * ]
Tigger
Mar 9 2017, 10:45 PM
RoofGardener
Mar 9 2017, 08:36 AM
Garbage and Bigotry ?

Hmm.... the first is subjective, but.. Bigotry ?
Could you give me an example of Trump making bigoted statements since becoming president ?
Apparently a lot of Mexicans are drug dealers and rapists.

No wonder they need a wall!
Did he say that since becoming president ?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
RoofGardener
Mar 10 2017, 12:27 PM
Tigger
Mar 9 2017, 10:45 PM
RoofGardener
Mar 9 2017, 08:36 AM
Garbage and Bigotry ?

Hmm.... the first is subjective, but.. Bigotry ?
Could you give me an example of Trump making bigoted statements since becoming president ?
Apparently a lot of Mexicans are drug dealers and rapists.

No wonder they need a wall!
Did he say that since becoming president ?
Shrugs: but he said it on June 15th 2016 and he certainly hasn't retracted it since has he?

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tigger
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
RoofGardener
Mar 10 2017, 12:27 PM
Did he say that since becoming president ?
What difference does that make? ;D

It's a matter of record that he did say it, surely you can't be suggesting he said racist and nasty things to get elected but now he's perfectly normal and well adjusted!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RoofGardener
Member Avatar
Lord of Plantpots
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Mar 9 2017, 09:42 PM
RoofGardener
Mar 9 2017, 08:45 PM
that's a kind-of circular logic, SteveK.

You appear to be starting with the assumption that DT had created an "anti-muslim" executive order . .
It's not an assumption, it's a proven fact as stated by the US Federal and Appeals courts
No.

Firstly, Trumps EO never mentions Islam or Muslims. Indeed, the ONLY reference to religion is a paragraph prioritising asylum/refugee acceptance to those who are a persecuted religious minority in their own country, and THAT is a general condition to ALL refugee's/asylum seekers, and NOT just to citizens of those countries on Barak Obama's terrorist list.

Secondly, the courts do not mention Muslims in their reasoning for suspending the order; it all seems to be down to a perceived conflict between the powers granted to the president by the Constitution on the one hand, and the legal stipulations of the 1965 Immigration and Naturalisation act.

(the text of the original order can be read here ... https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/01/27/executive-order-protecting-nation-foreign-terrorist-entry-united-states )

So no; no court in the USA has made any reference to a "Muslim Ban". Only the left-wing commentariat (I LOVE that term by the way) have described it as such. And it is a false and mendatious description.

"Trumps ban effects seven 'mostly muslim' countries"
Ergo Trump is a bigot against Muslims.
"Trumps ban effects seven 'mostly brown-skinned' countries"
Ergo Trump is a racist.
"Trumps ban effects seven countries that mostly repress homosexuals"
Ergo Trump is a Homophobe.
"Trumps ban effects seven countries that eat lots of Hummus"
Ergo, Trump is a Hummophobe.
"Trumps ban effects people in seven countries that mostly have two legs"
Ergo, Trump is a Bipedophobe.
"Trumps ban effects seven countries that mostly repress women"
Ergo, Trump is a misogynist.

Oh.. wait.. hold on.. that last one might have some grounds....  >:D

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RoofGardener
Member Avatar
Lord of Plantpots
[ *  *  *  * ]
Tigger
Mar 10 2017, 12:49 PM
RoofGardener
Mar 10 2017, 12:27 PM
Did he say that since becoming president ?
What difference does that make? ;D

It's a matter of record that he did say it, surely you can't be suggesting he said racist and nasty things to get elected but now he's perfectly normal and well adjusted!
Because you originally stated that the President was bigoted.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
RoofGardener
Mar 10 2017, 01:00 PM
Steve K
Mar 9 2017, 09:42 PM
RoofGardener
Mar 9 2017, 08:45 PM
that's a kind-of circular logic, SteveK.

You appear to be starting with the assumption that DT had created an "anti-muslim" executive order . .
It's not an assumption, it's a proven fact as stated by the US Federal and Appeals courts
No.

Firstly, Trumps EO never mentions Islam or Muslims. Indeed, the ONLY reference to religion is a paragraph prioritising asylum/refugee acceptance to those who are a persecuted religious minority in their own country, and THAT is a general condition to ALL refugee's/asylum seekers, and NOT just to citizens of those countries on Barak Obama's terrorist list.

Secondly, the courts do not mention Muslims in their reasoning for suspending the order; it all seems to be down to a perceived conflict between the powers granted to the president by the Constitution on the one hand, and the legal stipulations of the 1965 Immigration and Naturalisation act.

(the text of the original order can be read here ... https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/01/27/executive-order-protecting-nation-foreign-terrorist-entry-united-states )

So no; no court in the USA has made any reference to a "Muslim Ban". Only the left-wing commentariat (I LOVE that term by the way) have described it as such. And it is a false and mendatious description.

"Trumps ban effects seven 'mostly muslim' countries"
Ergo Trump is a bigot against Muslims.
"Trumps ban effects seven 'mostly brown-skinned' countries"
Ergo Trump is a racist.
"Trumps ban effects seven countries that mostly repress homosexuals"
Ergo Trump is a Homophobe.
"Trumps ban effects seven countries that eat lots of Hummus"
Ergo, Trump is a Hummophobe.
"Trumps ban effects people in seven countries that mostly have two legs"
Ergo, Trump is a Bipedophobe.
"Trumps ban effects seven countries that mostly repress women"
Ergo, Trump is a misogynist.

Oh.. wait.. hold on.. that last one might have some grounds....  >:D

Fiction ^

The courts specifically ruled that to have an Executive Order against the majority religion of countries (that just happened to be majority of the muslim religion) was illegal.

It was a Muslim ban and the courts ruled so,
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RoofGardener
Member Avatar
Lord of Plantpots
[ *  *  *  * ]
Huh ? The Executive order doesn't make any such statement. It isn't targeting any 'religious' group for adverse treatment. It is merely implementing a temporary travel ban on those countries on the Obama terrorism list.

Here is the text of the original Restraining Order against the Executive Order.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3446391-Robart-Order.html

It discusses financial loss to the State of Washington, but there is no mention of religion anywhere ?

Do you have a link to a US court determining that the EO is a "muslim ban" ?
Edited by RoofGardener, Mar 10 2017, 01:56 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
RoofGardener
Mar 10 2017, 01:54 PM
Really ? Well then.....

Thing is, I can't find any such finding ?

Here is the text of the original Restraining Order against the Executive Order.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3446391-Robart-Order.html

It discusses financial loss to the State of Washington, but there is no mention of religion anywhere ?

Do you have a link to a US court determining that the EO is a "muslim ban" ?
Yep

http://www.leagle.com/decision/In%20FCO%2020170209142/STATE%20OF%20WASHINGTON%20v.%20TRUMP

The states said it was a muslim ban, the court did not uphold the governments appeal against this
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RoofGardener
Member Avatar
Lord of Plantpots
[ *  *  *  * ]
Four states (e.g. the plaintifs) did indeed use the term 'muslim ban'. However, the court did not address that issue, nor was it a factor in the subsequent appeal process.

It all boils down to whether the President has constitutional authority to enforce this EO, in light of possible conflicts with the 1965 Immigration and Naturalisation act.

The courts did not rule on the issue, nor did the federal government in any of the appeals. They where not part of its remit. They merely ruled purely on on the issue of the validity of the temporary restraining order against the EO, subject to a fuller court case to clarify the underlying law.

And at no point did any Court make any reference to a "muslim ban". Nor was a "muslim ban" ever part of the rationale for issuing the Temporary Restraining Order. Washington State merely used this term to grab headlines and inflame public opinion. It was - and remains - a mendacious and cynical ploy on their part.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
RoofGardener
Mar 10 2017, 04:14 PM
Four states (e.g. the plaintifs) did indeed use the term 'muslim ban'. However, the court did not address that issue, nor was it a factor in the subsequent appeal process.

It all boils down to whether the President has constitutional authority to enforce this EO, in light of possible conflicts with the 1965 Immigration and Naturalisation act.

The courts did not rule on the issue, nor did the federal government in any of the appeals. They where not part of its remit. They merely ruled purely on on the issue of the validity of the temporary restraining order against the EO, subject to a fuller court case to clarify the underlying law.

And at no point did any Court make any reference to a "muslim ban". Nor was a "muslim ban" ever part of the rationale for issuing the Temporary Restraining Order. Washington State merely used this term to grab headlines and inflame public opinion. It was - and remains - a mendacious and cynical ploy on their part.
Well the First court upheld the complaint http://www.leagle.com/decision/In%20FDCO%2020170206H00/STATE%20v.%20TRUMP

And the complaint very much talks to a muslim ban
https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/washington/wawdce/2:2017cv00141/241761/1/0.pdf?ts=1485899371

and the Appeal court did not uphold the appeal against the first court

The courts ruled that the alleged muslim ban was such, was illegal and would hurt the states economically.



Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Mar 8 2017, 10:27 PM
"the liberal commentariat decided to link these incidents to Trump"

Link please
I guess it was wise for me not to hold my breath waiting for an answer

I ask again Link please?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RoofGardener
Member Avatar
Lord of Plantpots
[ *  *  *  * ]
SteveK, we're kinda going around in circles here. (and both posting links to the same document).

As far as I can see, at no point did ANY court refer to the Executive Order as a "muslim ban". Nor did they state that muslims where being targeted by the EO.

The courts rationale for initially granting the restraining order related to Washington State's submission that the temporary travel ban (the EO) could harm its economy, and interfere with the travel rights of its citizens. It also proposed that Section 5(b) could be discriminatory and in conflict with the 1965 Immigration and Naturalisation Act. It did NOT state that it targeted Muslims. However, in its submission, it made an allegation about Donald Trumps motives for the EO. This was for public (and media) consumption, and had no bearing on the actual legal content of its submission, nor was it factored in the courts decision.

The legality of the EO has not yet been tested in court. All that has happened is that a temporary restraining order has been issued regarding the EO, subject to the legality being tested at a later (but fairly prompt) date.

To reiterate:
No court has ruled yet on the legality of the EO, merely on the legality of the temporary restraining order.
No court has described the EO as being "anti muslim", or a "muslim ban".



Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
not sure I agree with all that

But it was still a muslim ban

Which of course is also evidenced by the wording of the all new Executive Order
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Cymru
Alt-Right
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Mar 10 2017, 05:23 PM
Steve K
Mar 8 2017, 10:27 PM
"the liberal commentariat decided to link these incidents to Trump"

Link please
I guess it was wise for me not to hold my breath waiting for an answer

I ask again Link please?
Google is your friend.

The rise of anti-Semitism in Donald Trump's America

Donald Trump’s Jewish Problem

US Jewish leaders urge Israel to query Trump on anti-Semitism

Anne Frank Center director blames Trump and his 'henchman' Steve Bannon for the 'cancer' of anti-Semitism currently in America: 'Our president is creating an incubator of hatred'
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RoofGardener
Member Avatar
Lord of Plantpots
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Mar 10 2017, 07:55 PM
not sure I agree with all that

But it was still a muslim ban

Which of course is also evidenced by the wording of the all new Executive Order
That is your opinion, SteveK, but it is not substantiated by any facts.

If it is a "muslim ban", then whey are non-muslims from the seven countries on Obama's terrorism list also temporarily denied access into the US ?

How come muslims from countries NOT on the terrorism list ARE allowed in ?

The "muslim ban" narrative doesn't hold up against reality.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
Cymru
Mar 10 2017, 08:17 PM
Steve K
Mar 10 2017, 05:23 PM
Steve K
Mar 8 2017, 10:27 PM
"the liberal commentariat decided to link these incidents to Trump"

Link please
I guess it was wise for me not to hold my breath waiting for an answer

I ask again Link please?
Google is your friend.

The rise of anti-Semitism in Donald Trump's America

Donald Trump’s Jewish Problem

US Jewish leaders urge Israel to query Trump on anti-Semitism

Anne Frank Center director blames Trump and his 'henchman' Steve Bannon for the 'cancer' of anti-Semitism currently in America: 'Our president is creating an incubator of hatred'
Well the first two links don't support the OP so it's not hard to see where this has all come from. How is Breitbart doing now that Milo has soiled his pitch?

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
RoofGardener
Mar 10 2017, 08:30 PM
Steve K
Mar 10 2017, 07:55 PM
not sure I agree with all that

But it was still a muslim ban

Which of course is also evidenced by the wording of the all new Executive Order
That is your opinion, SteveK, but it is not substantiated by any facts.

If it is a "muslim ban", then whey are non-muslims from the seven countries on Obama's terrorism list also temporarily denied access into the US ?
Timeline is going to get confusing if you use the present tense for the situation that pertained during the first travel ban (the second one has not come into effect yet and is better worded)

And anyway you are plain wrong. Non muslims as a block were default excluded from that ban

Quote:
 

How come muslims from countries NOT on the terrorism list ARE allowed in ?

That other nations were not on the list just shows that he tried to hide that it was a muslim ban by using Obama's pre-existing list of sus nations - and then was stupid enough to in effect say 'but the ban does not apply if you're not a muslim'

Quote:
 
The "muslim ban" narrative doesn't hold up against reality.
yes it does, it's why the courts ruled against him. The financial point in there judgements was necessary in order to issue an immediate injunction
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RoofGardener
Member Avatar
Lord of Plantpots
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve, once more, the courts did not rule against a "muslim travel ban", they issued a temporary restraining order pending a judicial review of the EO, at the bequest (initially) of the State of Washington, based on economic harm and restriction of the travel rights of the State's citizens.

As a separate issue from the seven Obama-list terrorist states, (from which ALL migration is suspended) he stated that priority for refugee status would be granted to "oppressed minority religions" from ALL countries. These are two completely separate clauses.

SteveK, if you begin your analysis from the assumption that DT is inherently anti-muslim, then obviously you can cast all events and actions in that light. However, his actions make MUCH more sense if you assume he is anti-terrorism.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
RoofGardener
Mar 10 2017, 08:49 PM
Steve, once more, the courts did not rule against a "muslim travel ban", they issued a temporary restraining order pending a judicial review of the EO, at the bequest (initially) of the State of Washington, based on economic harm and restriction of the travel rights of the State's citizens.

As a separate issue from the seven Obama-list terrorist states, (from which ALL migration is suspended) he stated that priority for refugee status would be granted to "oppressed minority religions" from ALL countries. These are two completely separate clauses.

SteveK, if you begin your analysis from the assumption that DT is inherently anti-muslim, then obviously you can cast all events and actions in that light. However, his actions make MUCH more sense if you assume he is anti-terrorism.
I did not start from any such assumption

I started from his statements,the effectively anti muslim wording of his first EO Travel Ban and that the courts upheld that it was illegal

That he's changed the key wording in his new Travel Ban just proves the point. Why else would he have removed the 'if you're not a muslim no ban applies' words?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tigger
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
RoofGardener
Mar 10 2017, 01:00 PM
Because you originally stated that the President was bigoted.
Oh right, so he's not the President now? It's a different Trump? I don't think timing really enters into it does it.

How about mocking the disabled as well?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
Seems Trump himself confirmed on February 8th that it was always a Muslim ban

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/829446266111287305

Quote:
 
Donald J. Trump‏Verified account @realDonaldTrump Feb 8
'Majority in Leading EU Nations Support Trump-Style Travel Ban'
Poll of more than 10,000 people in 10 countries...
Quote:
 
The figures "suggest that public opposition to further migration from predominantly Muslim states is by no means confined to Trump's electo . .


So Trump calls a Muslim focussed ban a "Trump-Style Travel Ban"

QED
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Mar 10 2017, 10:46 PM
Seems Trump himself confirmed on February 8th that it was always a Muslim ban

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/829446266111287305

Quote:
 
Donald J. Trump‏Verified account @realDonaldTrump Feb 8
'Majority in Leading EU Nations Support Trump-Style Travel Ban'
Poll of more than 10,000 people in 10 countries...
Quote:
 
The figures "suggest that public opposition to further migration from predominantly Muslim states is by no means confined to Trump's electo . .


So Trump calls a Muslim focussed ban a "Trump-Style Travel Ban"

QED

It should not have been in doubt.
Tribalism is affliction, and can be a curse!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Create a free forum in seconds.
Learn More · Register Now
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · America · Next Topic »
Add Reply