Trumps purpose was never a Muslim ban

[FJO]

When we go bomb the holy shit out of their country, don't act all surprized when they don't say, "thank you".

When Muslims bomb the holy shit out of cities, subways, restaurants, malls in the civilized Western world, they should not be surprised when the "thank you" they get from the civilized world is about as gentle.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

I've noticed where the disconnect is with conservatives and progressives on trumps statements about banning Muslims. The issue is the context.

Conservatives see Trumps statements on banning Muslim in the context he made them. Trump saw the immigration issue as a national security issue. We need to keep Jihadists from entering the country to protect ourselves. His first instinct was to ban Muslims to keep jihadists out and was foolish enough to say it because of his political inexperience. He was quickly told he couldn't do that and revised his position. Why?

Because his intent was never banning Muslims. His intent was national security. Banning Muslims was his mean to those ends until he realized he couldn't do that. Then he focused on more tailored approach.

Progressives on the other hand think his intention is to ban Muslims. Presumably because he is a hatefilled islamophobe who wants to oppress minorities or some nonsense like that. They are completely losing the obvious national security issue with jihadists.

To conservatives his foolish statements were a means to an end: national security. Why? Because that's the context the statements were made. To progressives his statements were the ends and he is going to implement them by any means.

But trump never cared about banning Muslims in and of itself. Here are five reasons at prove that:

1) the context he made his statements were always wit national security in mind.

2) his executive order does not attempt to ban Muslims or any other group based on religion. it does not even attempt to apply to all muslims

3) it applies to all people in the affected countries regardless to religious iviewpoints

4) removing Iraq from the list when they complied with what the administration requested shows they never cared about banning Muslims.

5) the order has always been temporary, which makes no sense if the purpose was secretly to ban Muslims.

You can't get around Trump's own words:

Trump:

"Donald J. Trump is calling for a complete and total shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what the hell is going on."

Former New York mayor Rudy W. Giuliani said President Trump wanted a “Muslim ban” and requested he assemble a commission to show him “the right way to do it legally.”


In the first Muslim ban
The order also says that the administration should "prioritize refugee claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution, provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual's country of nationality"

When he tries to pass a total ban on muslims, then let the Judge block THAT! When THAT actually happens. Meanwhile, while he's trying to pass a temporary ban, all you guys need to grow up.

There's no reason he can't ban all muslims. It's well within his authority to do so.

Apparently it's not.

It is, you had one idiot judge say he doesn't but once this hit's the SCOTUS it's sealed and delivered

 

[Marion Morrison]

What if it was a letting in Christian refugees from Syria plan?

The odd thing is - there are a lot of misconceptions going around.

For instance - that we are taking fewer Christians then Muslims in proportion to population. That is and isn't true. Among Iraqi refugees, we've taken in a greater number of Christians (relative to population) and in Syria - fewer. But the reasons for that aren't that obvious. Christians in Syria are a pretty prosperous, professionally educated minority. They are one of the many minority groups with ties to Assad's regime so Christian refugees can flee to regime controled territory and find safety. The other aspect is the Syrian Christian community is very close to the Lebonese Christian community and Syrian Christians are quite welcome in Lebenon - many have also fled there. That is one of the reasons so few are showing up as refugees. Unlike Iraq who's Christians have no place of safety to flee.

One minute. Are you saying there has been a priority on accepting Christians from Syria or what?

No, there hasn't. Just that the first EO attempted to do that.

Oh! So that's a bad thing, right? There's something wrong with that, correct?

 

[FJO]

The hell they didn't. Who do you think did then?

Terrorists.

Radical Islamic (a subset of Muslems ) Terrorists!

Terrorists.

Like...the radical subset of Christians that bomb abortion clinics and murder doctors.

Terrorists.

Those are home grown, domestic terrorists and there is no way to vet them and keep them out of the country.

President Trump's plan woulld keep Muslim terrorists out of the country, to your chagrin, I assume..

Home grown terrorists are a problem, but Trump's EO isn't about them as you well know. He's trying to prevent as many of the Muslim terrorists as possible from entering the USA and murdering as many Americans as possible.

I know. Tell that to those whom my post addressed.

 

[ricechickie]

I've noticed where the disconnect is with conservatives and progressives on trumps statements about banning Muslims. The issue is the context.

Conservatives see Trumps statements on banning Muslim in the context he made them. Trump saw the immigration issue as a national security issue. We need to keep Jihadists from entering the country to protect ourselves. His first instinct was to ban Muslims to keep jihadists out and was foolish enough to say it because of his political inexperience. He was quickly told he couldn't do that and revised his position. Why?

Because his intent was never banning Muslims. His intent was national security. Banning Muslims was his mean to those ends until he realized he couldn't do that. Then he focused on more tailored approach.

Progressives on the other hand think his intention is to ban Muslims. Presumably because he is a hatefilled islamophobe who wants to oppress minorities or some nonsense like that. They are completely losing the obvious national security issue with jihadists.

To conservatives his foolish statements were a means to an end: national security. Why? Because that's the context the statements were made. To progressives his statements were the ends and he is going to implement them by any means.

But trump never cared about banning Muslims in and of itself. Here are five reasons at prove that:

1) the context he made his statements were always wit national security in mind.

2) his executive order does not attempt to ban Muslims or any other group based on religion. it does not even attempt to apply to all muslims

3) it applies to all people in the affected countries regardless to religious iviewpoints

4) removing Iraq from the list when they complied with what the administration requested shows they never cared about banning Muslims.

5) the order has always been temporary, which makes no sense if the purpose was secretly to ban Muslims.

I noticed you failed to post what he actually said .

He posted what he actually did.

How about what he actually said !

That list is a pile of bullshit . Like Iraq was suddenly fixed ! Lol. The pentagon got Trumps ear and told him to drop Iraq because it fucked upmthe war on isis .

Stuff thats said during campaigns does not count Timmy. If it did Hillary would have been disqualified by all the crap Obama said about her in 2008. He said shes COMPLETELY out of touch with Americans and on the take.
Now suddenly in 2016, hes got good things to say about her? and he made this woman Secretary of State?
You got to be kidding me, In 2008 she was unqualified to run a hot dog stand. So here is how much, things taken out of context during presidential debates really count.



For some reason people say thing during campaigns, but it is important to look at the context. You are being ******* disingenous. You damn well know Trump is trying to protect the American people from terrorists who might come in among refugees. Yet you guys get a sad sack excuse of a Judge to obstruct an American President doing his job.

It only takes one ISIS terrorist to get through as a refugee (out of the thousands being let in) to use a Mack Truck to mow down a high school band marching in a local Christmas parade.

It only takes one native-born American to do that, too.

 

[task0778]

Terrorists.

Radical Islamic (a subset of Muslems ) Terrorists!

Terrorists.

Like...the radical subset of Christians that bomb abortion clinics and murder doctors.

Terrorists.

Those are home grown, domestic terrorists and there is no way to vet them and keep them out of the country.

President Trump's plan woulld keep Muslim terrorists out of the country, to your chagrin, I assume..

Home grown terrorists are a problem, but Trump's EO isn't about them as you well know. He's trying to prevent as many of the Muslim terrorists as possible from entering the USA and murdering as many Americans as possible.

I know. Tell that to those whom my post addressed.

Sorry, all these damn boxes are confusing. It's hard to tell who is talking to who.

 

[Marion Morrison]

What if it was a letting in Christian refugees from Syria plan?

The odd thing is - there are a lot of misconceptions going around.

For instance - that we are taking fewer Christians then Muslims in proportion to population. That is and isn't true. Among Iraqi refugees, we've taken in a greater number of Christians (relative to population) and in Syria - fewer. But the reasons for that aren't that obvious. Christians in Syria are a pretty prosperous, professionally educated minority. They are one of the many minority groups with ties to Assad's regime so Christian refugees can flee to regime controled territory and find safety. The other aspect is the Syrian Christian community is very close to the Lebonese Christian community and Syrian Christians are quite welcome in Lebenon - many have also fled there. That is one of the reasons so few are showing up as refugees. Unlike Iraq who's Christians have no place of safety to flee.

One minute. Are you saying there has been a priority on accepting Christians from Syria or what?

No, there hasn't. Just that the first EO attempted to do that.

Oh! So that's a bad thing, right? There's something wrong with that, correct?

I suppose you'd rather we take in all refugees that are Muslim and hate the way America is, correct?

Versus Christian Syrian refugees.

 

[Coyote]

What if it was a letting in Christian refugees from Syria plan?

The odd thing is - there are a lot of misconceptions going around.

For instance - that we are taking fewer Christians then Muslims in proportion to population. That is and isn't true. Among Iraqi refugees, we've taken in a greater number of Christians (relative to population) and in Syria - fewer. But the reasons for that aren't that obvious. Christians in Syria are a pretty prosperous, professionally educated minority. They are one of the many minority groups with ties to Assad's regime so Christian refugees can flee to regime controled territory and find safety. The other aspect is the Syrian Christian community is very close to the Lebonese Christian community and Syrian Christians are quite welcome in Lebenon - many have also fled there. That is one of the reasons so few are showing up as refugees. Unlike Iraq who's Christians have no place of safety to flee.

One minute. Are you saying there has been a priority on accepting Christians from Syria or what?

No, there hasn't. Just that the first EO attempted to do that.

Oh! So that's a bad thing, right? There's something wrong with that, correct?

I suppose you'd rather we take in all refugees that are Muslim and hate the way America is, correct?

There is only that extreme in your world, is that correct? And yes, it's a bad thing. It's a horrible thing to turn down a family in need solely because of their religion. Or to assume they hate America because you hate them.

We take in those who are vetted and in need. Simple.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

I've noticed where the disconnect is with conservatives and progressives on trumps statements about banning Muslims. The issue is the context.

Conservatives see Trumps statements on banning Muslim in the context he made them. Trump saw the immigration issue as a national security issue. We need to keep Jihadists from entering the country to protect ourselves. His first instinct was to ban Muslims to keep jihadists out and was foolish enough to say it because of his political inexperience. He was quickly told he couldn't do that and revised his position. Why?

Because his intent was never banning Muslims. His intent was national security. Banning Muslims was his mean to those ends until he realized he couldn't do that. Then he focused on more tailored approach.

Progressives on the other hand think his intention is to ban Muslims. Presumably because he is a hatefilled islamophobe who wants to oppress minorities or some nonsense like that. They are completely losing the obvious national security issue with jihadists.

To conservatives his foolish statements were a means to an end: national security. Why? Because that's the context the statements were made. To progressives his statements were the ends and he is going to implement them by any means.

But trump never cared about banning Muslims in and of itself. Here are five reasons at prove that:

1) the context he made his statements were always wit national security in mind.

2) his executive order does not attempt to ban Muslims or any other group based on religion. it does not even attempt to apply to all muslims

3) it applies to all people in the affected countries regardless to religious iviewpoints

4) removing Iraq from the list when they complied with what the administration requested shows they never cared about banning Muslims.

5) the order has always been temporary, which makes no sense if the purpose was secretly to ban Muslims.

I noticed you failed to post what he actually said .

He posted what he actually did.

How about what he actually said !

That list is a pile of bullshit . Like Iraq was suddenly fixed ! Lol. The pentagon got Trumps ear and told him to drop Iraq because it fucked upmthe war on isis .

Stuff thats said during campaigns does not count Timmy. If it did Hillary would have been disqualified by all the crap Obama said about her in 2008. He said shes COMPLETELY out of touch with Americans and on the take.
Now suddenly in 2016, hes got good things to say about her? and he made this woman Secretary of State?
You got to be kidding me, In 2008 she was unqualified to run a hot dog stand. So here is how much, things taken out of context during presidential debates really count.



For some reason people say thing during campaigns, but it is important to look at the context. You are being ******* disingenous. You damn well know Trump is trying to protect the American people from terrorists who might come in among refugees. Yet you guys get a sad sack excuse of a Judge to obstruct an American President doing his job.

It only takes one ISIS terrorist to get through as a refugee (out of the thousands being let in) to use a Mack Truck to mow down a high school band marching in a local Christmas parade.

It only takes one native-born American to do that, too.

Maybe we shouldn't add to that number with immigrants?

 

[JoeMoma]

I've noticed where the disconnect is with conservatives and progressives on trumps statements about banning Muslims. The issue is the context.

Conservatives see Trumps statements on banning Muslim in the context he made them. Trump saw the immigration issue as a national security issue. We need to keep Jihadists from entering the country to protect ourselves. His first instinct was to ban Muslims to keep jihadists out and was foolish enough to say it because of his political inexperience. He was quickly told he couldn't do that and revised his position. Why?

Because his intent was never banning Muslims. His intent was national security. Banning Muslims was his mean to those ends until he realized he couldn't do that. Then he focused on more tailored approach.

Progressives on the other hand think his intention is to ban Muslims. Presumably because he is a hatefilled islamophobe who wants to oppress minorities or some nonsense like that. They are completely losing the obvious national security issue with jihadists.

To conservatives his foolish statements were a means to an end: national security. Why? Because that's the context the statements were made. To progressives his statements were the ends and he is going to implement them by any means.

But trump never cared about banning Muslims in and of itself. Here are five reasons at prove that:

1) the context he made his statements were always wit national security in mind.

2) his executive order does not attempt to ban Muslims or any other group based on religion. it does not even attempt to apply to all muslims

3) it applies to all people in the affected countries regardless to religious iviewpoints

4) removing Iraq from the list when they complied with what the administration requested shows they never cared about banning Muslims.

5) the order has always been temporary, which makes no sense if the purpose was secretly to ban Muslims.

I noticed you failed to post what he actually said .

He posted what he actually did.

How about what he actually said !

That list is a pile of bullshit . Like Iraq was suddenly fixed ! Lol. The pentagon got Trumps ear and told him to drop Iraq because it fucked upmthe war on isis .

Stuff thats said during campaigns does not count Timmy. If it did Hillary would have been disqualified by all the crap Obama said about her in 2008. He said shes COMPLETELY out of touch with Americans and on the take.
Now suddenly in 2016, hes got good things to say about her? and he made this woman Secretary of State?
You got to be kidding me, In 2008 she was unqualified to run a hot dog stand. So here is how much, things taken out of context during presidential debates really count.



For some reason people say thing during campaigns, but it is important to look at the context. You are being ******* disingenous. You damn well know Trump is trying to protect the American people from terrorists who might come in among refugees. Yet you guys get a sad sack excuse of a Judge to obstruct an American President doing his job.

It only takes one ISIS terrorist to get through as a refugee (out of the thousands being let in) to use a Mack Truck to mow down a high school band marching in a local Christmas parade.

It only takes one native-born American to do that, too.

So we shouldn't try to prevent the ISIS terrorist from doing that because it's possible for a native born American to do it also?

 

[Care4all]

To me, it seems like a very foolish and silly move and statement that the admin is making with it....

It's like saying, because there is a future murderer who is a Christian living somewhere in your city or your State, that everyone who is a Christian in your city or your State should be locked up... or punished some how because there is a future murderer of the same faith, living near you or them, somewhere....???

 

[Missouri_Mike]

What if it was a letting in Christian refugees from Syria plan?

The odd thing is - there are a lot of misconceptions going around.

For instance - that we are taking fewer Christians then Muslims in proportion to population. That is and isn't true. Among Iraqi refugees, we've taken in a greater number of Christians (relative to population) and in Syria - fewer. But the reasons for that aren't that obvious. Christians in Syria are a pretty prosperous, professionally educated minority. They are one of the many minority groups with ties to Assad's regime so Christian refugees can flee to regime controled territory and find safety. The other aspect is the Syrian Christian community is very close to the Lebonese Christian community and Syrian Christians are quite welcome in Lebenon - many have also fled there. That is one of the reasons so few are showing up as refugees. Unlike Iraq who's Christians have no place of safety to flee.

One minute. Are you saying there has been a priority on accepting Christians from Syria or what?

No, there hasn't. Just that the first EO attempted to do that.

Oh! So that's a bad thing, right? There's something wrong with that, correct?

Trumps next EO should be a 100% stop to all immigration. It's what we need and can't be countered by some radical leftists judge.

 

[Coyote]

I've noticed where the disconnect is with conservatives and progressives on trumps statements about banning Muslims. The issue is the context.

Conservatives see Trumps statements on banning Muslim in the context he made them. Trump saw the immigration issue as a national security issue. We need to keep Jihadists from entering the country to protect ourselves. His first instinct was to ban Muslims to keep jihadists out and was foolish enough to say it because of his political inexperience. He was quickly told he couldn't do that and revised his position. Why?

Because his intent was never banning Muslims. His intent was national security. Banning Muslims was his mean to those ends until he realized he couldn't do that. Then he focused on more tailored approach.

Progressives on the other hand think his intention is to ban Muslims. Presumably because he is a hatefilled islamophobe who wants to oppress minorities or some nonsense like that. They are completely losing the obvious national security issue with jihadists.

To conservatives his foolish statements were a means to an end: national security. Why? Because that's the context the statements were made. To progressives his statements were the ends and he is going to implement them by any means.

But trump never cared about banning Muslims in and of itself. Here are five reasons at prove that:

1) the context he made his statements were always wit national security in mind.

2) his executive order does not attempt to ban Muslims or any other group based on religion. it does not even attempt to apply to all muslims

3) it applies to all people in the affected countries regardless to religious iviewpoints

4) removing Iraq from the list when they complied with what the administration requested shows they never cared about banning Muslims.

5) the order has always been temporary, which makes no sense if the purpose was secretly to ban Muslims.

He posted what he actually did.

How about what he actually said !

That list is a pile of bullshit . Like Iraq was suddenly fixed ! Lol. The pentagon got Trumps ear and told him to drop Iraq because it fucked upmthe war on isis .

Stuff thats said during campaigns does not count Timmy. If it did Hillary would have been disqualified by all the crap Obama said about her in 2008. He said shes COMPLETELY out of touch with Americans and on the take.
Now suddenly in 2016, hes got good things to say about her? and he made this woman Secretary of State?
You got to be kidding me, In 2008 she was unqualified to run a hot dog stand. So here is how much, things taken out of context during presidential debates really count.



For some reason people say thing during campaigns, but it is important to look at the context. You are being ******* disingenous. You damn well know Trump is trying to protect the American people from terrorists who might come in among refugees. Yet you guys get a sad sack excuse of a Judge to obstruct an American President doing his job.

It only takes one ISIS terrorist to get through as a refugee (out of the thousands being let in) to use a Mack Truck to mow down a high school band marching in a local Christmas parade.

It only takes one native-born American to do that, too.

So we shouldn't try to prevent the ISIS terrorist from doing that because it's possible for a native born American to do it also?

We've been doing a good job of that already.

 

[Marion Morrison]

The odd thing is - there are a lot of misconceptions going around.

For instance - that we are taking fewer Christians then Muslims in proportion to population. That is and isn't true. Among Iraqi refugees, we've taken in a greater number of Christians (relative to population) and in Syria - fewer. But the reasons for that aren't that obvious. Christians in Syria are a pretty prosperous, professionally educated minority. They are one of the many minority groups with ties to Assad's regime so Christian refugees can flee to regime controled territory and find safety. The other aspect is the Syrian Christian community is very close to the Lebonese Christian community and Syrian Christians are quite welcome in Lebenon - many have also fled there. That is one of the reasons so few are showing up as refugees. Unlike Iraq who's Christians have no place of safety to flee.

One minute. Are you saying there has been a priority on accepting Christians from Syria or what?

No, there hasn't. Just that the first EO attempted to do that.

Oh! So that's a bad thing, right? There's something wrong with that, correct?

I suppose you'd rather we take in all refugees that are Muslim and hate the way America is, correct?

There is only that extreme in your world, is that correct? And yes, it's a bad thing. It's a horrible thing to turn down a family in need solely because of their religion. Or to assume they hate America because you hate them.

We take in those who are vetted and in need. Simple.

So none of them can be the Christians from Syria, according to what you posted, correct?

Never you mind that Christian soldiers are fighting for Assad. never you mind that ISIS and "the rebels" are beheading them and all that.

I suppose that all good according to you, aye? It's not to me.

 

[JoeMoma]

To me, it seems like a very foolish and silly move and statement that the admin is making with it....

It's like saying, because there is a future murderer who is a Christian living somewhere in your city or your State, that everyone who is a Christian in your city or your State should be locked up... or punished some how because there is a future murderer of the same faith, living near them, somewhere....???

The eo does not use religion as an indicator.

 

[ricechickie]

I've noticed where the disconnect is with conservatives and progressives on trumps statements about banning Muslims. The issue is the context.

Conservatives see Trumps statements on banning Muslim in the context he made them. Trump saw the immigration issue as a national security issue. We need to keep Jihadists from entering the country to protect ourselves. His first instinct was to ban Muslims to keep jihadists out and was foolish enough to say it because of his political inexperience. He was quickly told he couldn't do that and revised his position. Why?

Because his intent was never banning Muslims. His intent was national security. Banning Muslims was his mean to those ends until he realized he couldn't do that. Then he focused on more tailored approach.

Progressives on the other hand think his intention is to ban Muslims. Presumably because he is a hatefilled islamophobe who wants to oppress minorities or some nonsense like that. They are completely losing the obvious national security issue with jihadists.

To conservatives his foolish statements were a means to an end: national security. Why? Because that's the context the statements were made. To progressives his statements were the ends and he is going to implement them by any means.

But trump never cared about banning Muslims in and of itself. Here are five reasons at prove that:

1) the context he made his statements were always wit national security in mind.

2) his executive order does not attempt to ban Muslims or any other group based on religion. it does not even attempt to apply to all muslims

3) it applies to all people in the affected countries regardless to religious iviewpoints

4) removing Iraq from the list when they complied with what the administration requested shows they never cared about banning Muslims.

5) the order has always been temporary, which makes no sense if the purpose was secretly to ban Muslims.

He posted what he actually did.

How about what he actually said !

That list is a pile of bullshit . Like Iraq was suddenly fixed ! Lol. The pentagon got Trumps ear and told him to drop Iraq because it fucked upmthe war on isis .

Stuff thats said during campaigns does not count Timmy. If it did Hillary would have been disqualified by all the crap Obama said about her in 2008. He said shes COMPLETELY out of touch with Americans and on the take.
Now suddenly in 2016, hes got good things to say about her? and he made this woman Secretary of State?
You got to be kidding me, In 2008 she was unqualified to run a hot dog stand. So here is how much, things taken out of context during presidential debates really count.



For some reason people say thing during campaigns, but it is important to look at the context. You are being ******* disingenous. You damn well know Trump is trying to protect the American people from terrorists who might come in among refugees. Yet you guys get a sad sack excuse of a Judge to obstruct an American President doing his job.

It only takes one ISIS terrorist to get through as a refugee (out of the thousands being let in) to use a Mack Truck to mow down a high school band marching in a local Christmas parade.

It only takes one native-born American to do that, too.

Maybe we shouldn't add to that number with immigrants?

I've noticed where the disconnect is with conservatives and progressives on trumps statements about banning Muslims. The issue is the context.

Conservatives see Trumps statements on banning Muslim in the context he made them. Trump saw the immigration issue as a national security issue. We need to keep Jihadists from entering the country to protect ourselves. His first instinct was to ban Muslims to keep jihadists out and was foolish enough to say it because of his political inexperience. He was quickly told he couldn't do that and revised his position. Why?

Because his intent was never banning Muslims. His intent was national security. Banning Muslims was his mean to those ends until he realized he couldn't do that. Then he focused on more tailored approach.

Progressives on the other hand think his intention is to ban Muslims. Presumably because he is a hatefilled islamophobe who wants to oppress minorities or some nonsense like that. They are completely losing the obvious national security issue with jihadists.

To conservatives his foolish statements were a means to an end: national security. Why? Because that's the context the statements were made. To progressives his statements were the ends and he is going to implement them by any means.

But trump never cared about banning Muslims in and of itself. Here are five reasons at prove that:

1) the context he made his statements were always wit national security in mind.

2) his executive order does not attempt to ban Muslims or any other group based on religion. it does not even attempt to apply to all muslims

3) it applies to all people in the affected countries regardless to religious iviewpoints

4) removing Iraq from the list when they complied with what the administration requested shows they never cared about banning Muslims.

5) the order has always been temporary, which makes no sense if the purpose was secretly to ban Muslims.

He posted what he actually did.

How about what he actually said !

That list is a pile of bullshit . Like Iraq was suddenly fixed ! Lol. The pentagon got Trumps ear and told him to drop Iraq because it fucked upmthe war on isis .

Stuff thats said during campaigns does not count Timmy. If it did Hillary would have been disqualified by all the crap Obama said about her in 2008. He said shes COMPLETELY out of touch with Americans and on the take.
Now suddenly in 2016, hes got good things to say about her? and he made this woman Secretary of State?
You got to be kidding me, In 2008 she was unqualified to run a hot dog stand. So here is how much, things taken out of context during presidential debates really count.



For some reason people say thing during campaigns, but it is important to look at the context. You are being ******* disingenous. You damn well know Trump is trying to protect the American people from terrorists who might come in among refugees. Yet you guys get a sad sack excuse of a Judge to obstruct an American President doing his job.

It only takes one ISIS terrorist to get through as a refugee (out of the thousands being let in) to use a Mack Truck to mow down a high school band marching in a local Christmas parade.

It only takes one native-born American to do that, too.

So we shouldn't try to prevent the ISIS terrorist from doing that because it's possible for a native born American to do it also?

Just pointing out the hypocrisy. ISIS isn't our only danger in the U.S., and it's time to stop pretending that foreign terrorists are killing us in greater numbers than anyone else.

Say you're camping, and a mosquito and a bear both get into the tent. You're going to kill the mosquito first?

 

[Vandalshandle]

We "Progressives" are well aware that Trump is not banning Muslims for national security reasons. If he were, he would have banned Saudi Arabians, since that is were the 9/11 hijackers came from. What he is doing is banning muslims who don't have money, and who the reactionary Right are convinced are "bad muslims". It is just another example of Trump pandering to the lowest common denominator of his base.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

To me, it seems like a very foolish and silly move and statement that the admin is making with it....

It's like saying, because there is a future murderer who is a Christian living somewhere in your city or your State, that everyone who is a Christian in your city or your State should be locked up... or punished some how because there is a future murderer of the same faith, living near them, somewhere....???

To me you seem like a retard. If Christians were blowing people up in the same numbers as muslims this may make sense. They aren't. Muslims have what? About 100% of these actions?

 

[JoeMoma]

I've noticed where the disconnect is with conservatives and progressives on trumps statements about banning Muslims. The issue is the context.

Conservatives see Trumps statements on banning Muslim in the context he made them. Trump saw the immigration issue as a national security issue. We need to keep Jihadists from entering the country to protect ourselves. His first instinct was to ban Muslims to keep jihadists out and was foolish enough to say it because of his political inexperience. He was quickly told he couldn't do that and revised his position. Why?

Because his intent was never banning Muslims. His intent was national security. Banning Muslims was his mean to those ends until he realized he couldn't do that. Then he focused on more tailored approach.

Progressives on the other hand think his intention is to ban Muslims. Presumably because he is a hatefilled islamophobe who wants to oppress minorities or some nonsense like that. They are completely losing the obvious national security issue with jihadists.

To conservatives his foolish statements were a means to an end: national security. Why? Because that's the context the statements were made. To progressives his statements were the ends and he is going to implement them by any means.

But trump never cared about banning Muslims in and of itself. Here are five reasons at prove that:

1) the context he made his statements were always wit national security in mind.

2) his executive order does not attempt to ban Muslims or any other group based on religion. it does not even attempt to apply to all muslims

3) it applies to all people in the affected countries regardless to religious iviewpoints

4) removing Iraq from the list when they complied with what the administration requested shows they never cared about banning Muslims.

5) the order has always been temporary, which makes no sense if the purpose was secretly to ban Muslims.

How about what he actually said !

That list is a pile of bullshit . Like Iraq was suddenly fixed ! Lol. The pentagon got Trumps ear and told him to drop Iraq because it fucked upmthe war on isis .

Stuff thats said during campaigns does not count Timmy. If it did Hillary would have been disqualified by all the crap Obama said about her in 2008. He said shes COMPLETELY out of touch with Americans and on the take.
Now suddenly in 2016, hes got good things to say about her? and he made this woman Secretary of State?
You got to be kidding me, In 2008 she was unqualified to run a hot dog stand. So here is how much, things taken out of context during presidential debates really count.



For some reason people say thing during campaigns, but it is important to look at the context. You are being ******* disingenous. You damn well know Trump is trying to protect the American people from terrorists who might come in among refugees. Yet you guys get a sad sack excuse of a Judge to obstruct an American President doing his job.

It only takes one ISIS terrorist to get through as a refugee (out of the thousands being let in) to use a Mack Truck to mow down a high school band marching in a local Christmas parade.

It only takes one native-born American to do that, too.

Maybe we shouldn't add to that number with immigrants?

I've noticed where the disconnect is with conservatives and progressives on trumps statements about banning Muslims. The issue is the context.

Conservatives see Trumps statements on banning Muslim in the context he made them. Trump saw the immigration issue as a national security issue. We need to keep Jihadists from entering the country to protect ourselves. His first instinct was to ban Muslims to keep jihadists out and was foolish enough to say it because of his political inexperience. He was quickly told he couldn't do that and revised his position. Why?

Because his intent was never banning Muslims. His intent was national security. Banning Muslims was his mean to those ends until he realized he couldn't do that. Then he focused on more tailored approach.

Progressives on the other hand think his intention is to ban Muslims. Presumably because he is a hatefilled islamophobe who wants to oppress minorities or some nonsense like that. They are completely losing the obvious national security issue with jihadists.

To conservatives his foolish statements were a means to an end: national security. Why? Because that's the context the statements were made. To progressives his statements were the ends and he is going to implement them by any means.

But trump never cared about banning Muslims in and of itself. Here are five reasons at prove that:

1) the context he made his statements were always wit national security in mind.

2) his executive order does not attempt to ban Muslims or any other group based on religion. it does not even attempt to apply to all muslims

3) it applies to all people in the affected countries regardless to religious iviewpoints

4) removing Iraq from the list when they complied with what the administration requested shows they never cared about banning Muslims.

5) the order has always been temporary, which makes no sense if the purpose was secretly to ban Muslims.

How about what he actually said !

That list is a pile of bullshit . Like Iraq was suddenly fixed ! Lol. The pentagon got Trumps ear and told him to drop Iraq because it fucked upmthe war on isis .

Stuff thats said during campaigns does not count Timmy. If it did Hillary would have been disqualified by all the crap Obama said about her in 2008. He said shes COMPLETELY out of touch with Americans and on the take.
Now suddenly in 2016, hes got good things to say about her? and he made this woman Secretary of State?
You got to be kidding me, In 2008 she was unqualified to run a hot dog stand. So here is how much, things taken out of context during presidential debates really count.



For some reason people say thing during campaigns, but it is important to look at the context. You are being ******* disingenous. You damn well know Trump is trying to protect the American people from terrorists who might come in among refugees. Yet you guys get a sad sack excuse of a Judge to obstruct an American President doing his job.

It only takes one ISIS terrorist to get through as a refugee (out of the thousands being let in) to use a Mack Truck to mow down a high school band marching in a local Christmas parade.

It only takes one native-born American to do that, too.

So we shouldn't try to prevent the ISIS terrorist from doing that because it's possible for a native born American to do it also?

Just pointing out the hypocrisy. ISIS isn't our only danger in the U.S., and it's time to stop pretending that foreign terrorists are killing us in greater numbers than anyone else.

Say you're camping, and a mosquito and a bear both get into the tent. You're going to kill the mosquito first?

Mosquitos are responsible for more deaths than bears.......but I do get your point. That being said, measures can be taken to deal with both the mosquitos and the bears, hopefully before either get into the tent.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

I've noticed where the disconnect is with conservatives and progressives on trumps statements about banning Muslims. The issue is the context.

Conservatives see Trumps statements on banning Muslim in the context he made them. Trump saw the immigration issue as a national security issue. We need to keep Jihadists from entering the country to protect ourselves. His first instinct was to ban Muslims to keep jihadists out and was foolish enough to say it because of his political inexperience. He was quickly told he couldn't do that and revised his position. Why?

Because his intent was never banning Muslims. His intent was national security. Banning Muslims was his mean to those ends until he realized he couldn't do that. Then he focused on more tailored approach.

Progressives on the other hand think his intention is to ban Muslims. Presumably because he is a hatefilled islamophobe who wants to oppress minorities or some nonsense like that. They are completely losing the obvious national security issue with jihadists.

To conservatives his foolish statements were a means to an end: national security. Why? Because that's the context the statements were made. To progressives his statements were the ends and he is going to implement them by any means.

But trump never cared about banning Muslims in and of itself. Here are five reasons at prove that:

1) the context he made his statements were always wit national security in mind.

2) his executive order does not attempt to ban Muslims or any other group based on religion. it does not even attempt to apply to all muslims

3) it applies to all people in the affected countries regardless to religious iviewpoints

4) removing Iraq from the list when they complied with what the administration requested shows they never cared about banning Muslims.

5) the order has always been temporary, which makes no sense if the purpose was secretly to ban Muslims.

How about what he actually said !

That list is a pile of bullshit . Like Iraq was suddenly fixed ! Lol. The pentagon got Trumps ear and told him to drop Iraq because it fucked upmthe war on isis .

Stuff thats said during campaigns does not count Timmy. If it did Hillary would have been disqualified by all the crap Obama said about her in 2008. He said shes COMPLETELY out of touch with Americans and on the take.
Now suddenly in 2016, hes got good things to say about her? and he made this woman Secretary of State?
You got to be kidding me, In 2008 she was unqualified to run a hot dog stand. So here is how much, things taken out of context during presidential debates really count.



For some reason people say thing during campaigns, but it is important to look at the context. You are being ******* disingenous. You damn well know Trump is trying to protect the American people from terrorists who might come in among refugees. Yet you guys get a sad sack excuse of a Judge to obstruct an American President doing his job.

It only takes one ISIS terrorist to get through as a refugee (out of the thousands being let in) to use a Mack Truck to mow down a high school band marching in a local Christmas parade.

It only takes one native-born American to do that, too.

Maybe we shouldn't add to that number with immigrants?

I've noticed where the disconnect is with conservatives and progressives on trumps statements about banning Muslims. The issue is the context.

Conservatives see Trumps statements on banning Muslim in the context he made them. Trump saw the immigration issue as a national security issue. We need to keep Jihadists from entering the country to protect ourselves. His first instinct was to ban Muslims to keep jihadists out and was foolish enough to say it because of his political inexperience. He was quickly told he couldn't do that and revised his position. Why?

Because his intent was never banning Muslims. His intent was national security. Banning Muslims was his mean to those ends until he realized he couldn't do that. Then he focused on more tailored approach.

Progressives on the other hand think his intention is to ban Muslims. Presumably because he is a hatefilled islamophobe who wants to oppress minorities or some nonsense like that. They are completely losing the obvious national security issue with jihadists.

To conservatives his foolish statements were a means to an end: national security. Why? Because that's the context the statements were made. To progressives his statements were the ends and he is going to implement them by any means.

But trump never cared about banning Muslims in and of itself. Here are five reasons at prove that:

1) the context he made his statements were always wit national security in mind.

2) his executive order does not attempt to ban Muslims or any other group based on religion. it does not even attempt to apply to all muslims

3) it applies to all people in the affected countries regardless to religious iviewpoints

4) removing Iraq from the list when they complied with what the administration requested shows they never cared about banning Muslims.

5) the order has always been temporary, which makes no sense if the purpose was secretly to ban Muslims.

How about what he actually said !

That list is a pile of bullshit . Like Iraq was suddenly fixed ! Lol. The pentagon got Trumps ear and told him to drop Iraq because it fucked upmthe war on isis .

Stuff thats said during campaigns does not count Timmy. If it did Hillary would have been disqualified by all the crap Obama said about her in 2008. He said shes COMPLETELY out of touch with Americans and on the take.
Now suddenly in 2016, hes got good things to say about her? and he made this woman Secretary of State?
You got to be kidding me, In 2008 she was unqualified to run a hot dog stand. So here is how much, things taken out of context during presidential debates really count.



For some reason people say thing during campaigns, but it is important to look at the context. You are being ******* disingenous. You damn well know Trump is trying to protect the American people from terrorists who might come in among refugees. Yet you guys get a sad sack excuse of a Judge to obstruct an American President doing his job.

It only takes one ISIS terrorist to get through as a refugee (out of the thousands being let in) to use a Mack Truck to mow down a high school band marching in a local Christmas parade.

It only takes one native-born American to do that, too.

So we shouldn't try to prevent the ISIS terrorist from doing that because it's possible for a native born American to do it also?

Just pointing out the hypocrisy. ISIS isn't our only danger in the U.S., and it's time to stop pretending that foreign terrorists are killing us in greater numbers than anyone else.

Say you're camping, and a mosquito and a bear both get into the tent. You're going to kill the mosquito first?

Are you seriously telling us the muslims, the ******* people blowing shit up, killing people with axes, and attacking everything in the west are the ******* Mosquito's and the Christians are the bears?

Are you seriously this ******* dumb?

Say you're at the mall with your wife and kid and there are 2,000 Christians in there shopping. And there are two or three muslims. What are the odds you need to worry about the Christians being the ones that will set off a bomb or go on a shooting spree?