DHS picked the countries to ban when Obama was still the President[0]. I'm being flagged for stating the inconvenient truth that this isn't 'muslim ban'. Most muslim countries aren't even affected.
I think you're being flagged for being needlessly argumentative and uncivil.
The DHS list of countries on that waiver ban is indeed the same as those listed in the Executive Order. I haven't seen a reference that this list was indeed the basis for the countries listed in the Executive Order. If you know of one, please do share. I'm happy to be corrected.
Guiliani is widely reported in an interview on Fox News just yesterday to have confirmed that at least initially the goal was to create a Muslim ban:
I’ll tell you the whole history of it: When he first announced it, he said ‘Muslim ban,'" Giuliani said on Fox News.
"He called me up, he said, ‘Put a commission together, show me the right way to do it legally.’"
Giuliani said he then put together a commission that included lawmakers and expert lawyers. "And what we did was we focused on, instead of religion, danger," Giuliani said.
"The areas of the world that create danger for us, which is a factual basis, not a religious basis. Perfectly legal, perfectly sensible."
Giuliani reiterated that the ban is "not based on religion."
Perhaps the claim that resulting Executive Order is indeed purely based on risk assessment is true. I think reasonable people can understandably question whether this is indeed the case. To deny that it at least initially was motivated by the desire to create a Muslim ban is disingenuous at best. Accusing people of relying on "fake news" if they bring this up is clearly unfair.
Giuliani 'It's based substantial on evidence people are sending terrorist into our country'[0]. If christian terrorist would be coming in to US with evil intention from certain countries I don't think anyone would oppose them being banned temporarily while their organisation is taken care of. Trump is looking to attack ISIS in the next 30 days if someone wasn't paying attention and wants to lower risk of attacks happening by people coming in. It's easy to misrepresent what someone is saying as we have seen the last year.
Obama has been bombing these countries killing innocent people and now people are upset that Trump doesn't let army age men to come from these countries while he is taking care of the terrorist Obamas action created? Where were the marches against Obamas warmongering policies?
You're cherry-picking one quote from Giuliani rather than looking at the larger conversation he had during the Fox News interview. And then shifting the discussion to Obama.
The fact that people didn't protest more about Obama is a separate argument. The fact that Bush invaded Iraq is a separate argument. The fact that the US supported the mujahideen during the Soviet Afghan war is a separate argument. The fact that the US helped overthrow the Iranian government and install the Shah in 1953 is a separate argument. The fact that European powers divvied up the Middle East following World War I is a separate argument. Want to go back to the Crusades? Abraham?
Or you can tie them all together. They're all ultimately related. Which do you want? Where do you want to draw the line? What do you want to take responsibility for? Drawing in all manner of related topics doesn't help us move forward. I don't think any of that is useful.
What people are discussing now, today, is Trump's Executive Order, and what to do about it now.
Again, semantics. It's being called a Muslim ban because it _only_ affects Muslims. Sure, it doesn't affect _all_ Muslims, but it still singles out one religious group.
It's being called a Muslim ban because Trump called for a Muslim ban, shifted the definition many times, and then issued this order with similar justification and overlapping provisions to many versions (though not identical to any version) of the Muslim ban.
It neither effects all Muslims nor (since it includes a temporary complete ban on all refugees) only Muslims, but it's still overtly targeted first and foremost at Muslims.
One person said they were implementing a Muslim ban, and the other... well, he didn't (not to mention his policy was materially different from the current one). I don't need to read fake news to understand the difference.
Do you mean the book made Rockefeller look evil or generally viewed as such? I personally didn't feel the book made him look evil, but that might be just me.
I don't think it's surprising him being hated as the most powerful man at the time. His thrive did make lot of progress for humanity.
I meant that Chernow would regularly list facts and anecdotes about Rockefeller, then sum up with some negative opinions about him that seemed to come out of nowhere (being unjustified by the facts presented). I suspected that he'd come into the project with the popular evil caricature of Rockefeller, and couldn't shake it.
Contrast that with Ambose's "Nothing Like It In The World" about the first intercontinental railroad. In it he says he started with the usual extremely negative view of the railroad and the people involved with it, but after doing the research was forced to do a 180 and regarded it as a marvelous accomplishment and the people involved were amazing.
Obama is the only President who has been in war for everyday of his 8 year presidency. Bombing several countries at the same time. Obama's actions also created the vacuum for ISIS. At least he has his Nobel Peace Prize.
No outcry or marches against Obamas actions, but goodness me when Trump has to clear the mess 'well take a stand against him'.
One of these things happens abroad - out of sight, out of mind - another happens at home.
One of these things happens as part of a (relatively) few "outrages", one of those things happens as part of a consistent torrent of outrages.
One of these things is a fact and an action, the other is an interpretation. In case that isn't clear: The interpretation is "clearing the mess"; I sure as shit don't agree with you that that's what's going on, and I doubt Sam does, either - which is part of why he's posting this.
Yeah it's almost like people don't even do any diligence but emotionally attack Trump in every turn. Do research how christians are persecuted or whats happening to gays and women in Muslim countries.
>whats happening to gays and women in Muslim countries.
Does he allow gay men or muslim women to enter then? I would applaud such an initiative. Why doesn't he do that? Muslim women far outnumber christians in these countries, if you cared so much about them you'd be against this ban.
If you care about persecuted people, what about persecuted muslims? Asghar Farhadi, the director of A Separation, cannot attend the Oscars because of the bizarre ban on Iranians. He has a long history of being persecuted by his government. That is not even talking about the millions of muslim doctors, engineers, actually skilled people being bombed out of their homes by all kinds of forces.
And it's not like the US gleefully accepts all refugees from Syria. They go though an extensive process that takes years. The ones that get through - are far less likely to commit any kind of crime than the average American citizen.
Obama is the only president being in war for everyday of his 8 year presidency and simultaneously bombing what 6-7 countries at same time. Good thing he got a nobel peace prize.
Too bad we didn't get same kind of outrage of Obamas actions in press what we get now because Trump has to sort this mess.
It's the National Security Entry-Exit Registration System that was set in place in the wake of 9/11. Basically Obama dismantled it to make Trump look bad since he now has to reinstate it and liberals & press cry wolf.
That was for for non-citizens. Big difference from Trump's implication during the election that Muslim citizens are keeping their mouths shut and not reporting terrorists.
Trump's previously proposed Muslim registry covers Muslims already authorized to live in the US.
He's building a huge wall, wants to deport millions and specifically make a list for migrant crimes, a similar thing done to Jews by the Nazi's. He's banning people from specific places from entering and generalizing them all to be terrorists or rapists.
There are recordings of him talking about casually committing sexual assault. Allegations of rape etc that occurred long before he ran for president.
The Vice President he selected advocated electroshock therapy for LGBT people.
His son admitted in a recording they get a lot of money from Russia and love Russia has been his only consistent policy.
He has been arguing for increased nuclear proliferation.
On the Golden showers Russia & Trump threw a fit over this accusation way out of proportion of what would be a reasonable response if it wasn't true.
That story came from a leaked report written by a well-respected former intelligence officer. The article does not state them as fact, instead remarks on the source of the unverified information, and gives background on Russian blackmail intelligence operations.
That's not fake news. And the whole reason anyone was writing about it was because Buzzfeed published the memo - other news organisations had a copy of it for months but didn't publish, specifically because they couldn't verify the information.
Like I said, the report was compiled by a respected former intelligence officer. It hasn't been possible to verify all the claims (as secret operations often aren't, which is why these supposedly untrustworthy media outlets didn't publish it) but that means it is unverified, not that it is completely fabricated.
[0]https://www.dhs.gov/news/2016/02/18/dhs-announces-further-tr...