Donald Trump

[oliveandblue]

...or they know he won't show critical information about people ABOVE him - so why give him immunity?

[Fairy In Boots]

6 hours ago, Danny said:

Has Trump realised his travel bans are illegal yet and nothing like the 6 month hold up Obama had for Iraqi refugees? 

They are though a restricted border policy based on your country of origin is still a discrimination based immigration policy no matter how you look at it.  It's a complete non issue really, every country should have the right to be selective about who it lets in on the grounds of national safety. The real issue I would ask if I was American is why aren't Saudi on the list. 

4 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Flynn's request for immunity has been declined, probably to avoid an Oliver North type situation.

This guys an abc reporter, as I said earlier give it a few days to let the picture emerge

 

[Danny]

2 minutes ago, Fairy In Boots said:

They are though a restricted border policy based on your country of origin is still a discrimination based immigration policy no matter how you look at it.  It's a complete non issue really, every country should have the right to be selective about who it lets in on the grounds of national safety. The real issue I would ask if I was American is why aren't Saudi on the list. 

This guys an abc reporter, as I said earlier give it a few days to let the picture emerge

 

An Iraqi refugee was guilty of planting IEDs back in Iraq if I recall correctly, the government put a hold to all incoming Iraqi refugees until so it could improve their vetting process and then put those already in the States through that vetting process. That process ran its course and new Iraqi refugees were allowed in.

Its in no way comparable to Trump banning migration from nationals of seven Muslim countries, which was supported by his anti-Muslim rhetoric throughout his campaign.

The USA have that right, it's American judges deeming the means in which Trump is singling out Muslims illegal.

[Dr. Gonzo]

4 hours ago, Fairy In Boots said:

They are though a restricted border policy based on your country of origin is still a discrimination based immigration policy no matter how you look at it.  It's a complete non issue really, every country should have the right to be selective about who it lets in on the grounds of national safety. The real issue I would ask if I was American is why aren't Saudi on the list. 

This guys an abc reporter, as I said earlier give it a few days to let the picture emerge

 

So am I to trust the media? Or am I to trust Flynn's lawyer? And isn't that inconsistent coming from a critic of the media?

[Fairy In Boots]

2 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

So am I to trust the media? Or am I to trust Flynn's lawyer? And isn't that inconsistent coming from a critic of the media?

No i'm pointing out that conflicting stories come out over a 3-4 day period. Why must you trust implicitly straightaway? Let the picture emerge, the WSJ say one thing, ABC are saying another, the only real thing we've seen from Flynn is his lawyers letter which doesn't mention immunity but hints at bias due to the high politicizing of the issue.

That's why i'm critiquing the media, it's utterly untrustworthy at present as a lot of organisation are out to push their own narratives rather than relay the facts in an unbiased manner.

7 hours ago, Danny said:

An Iraqi refugee was guilty of planting IEDs back in Iraq if I recall correctly, the government put a hold to all incoming Iraqi refugees until so it could improve their vetting process and then put those already in the States through that vetting process. That process ran its course and new Iraqi refugees were allowed in.

Its in no way comparable to Trump banning migration from nationals of seven Muslim countries, which was supported by his anti-Muslim rhetoric throughout his campaign.

The USA have that right, it's American judges deeming the means in which Trump is singling out Muslims illegal.

Quote

What is the order?
It brings in a suspension of the US Refugee Admissions Programme for 120 days
There is also an indefinite ban on Syrian refugees
And anyone arriving from seven Muslim-majority countries - Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen - faces a 90-day visa suspension. Some visa categories, such as diplomats and the UN, are not included in the suspension
The order also introduces a cap of 50,000 refugees to be accepted in 2017, against a limit of 110,000 set by former President Barack Obama
Priority will be given to religious minorities facing persecution in their countries. In an interview, Mr Trump singled out Christians in Syria
Exceptions could be made on a case-by-case basis

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38781302

it's a suspension of the visa for 90 days and exception may be made on a case by case basis, the only real argument from my point of view is where's Nigeria or Saudi? Or hang on they should take x amount of refugees? which is what they've really banned specifically from Syria. Any sane fucker would given the fact no cunt real knows who's the good and bad guys at the minute.

 

 

[Dr. Gonzo]

All media sources are pushing their own narratives, and have been since media sources have been a thing. That's why fact checking is important and whether these institutions have credibility and fact checking policies in place, rather than frivolously publishing stories (like say NBC, Fox, Daily Mail, CNN). His lawyer's letter mentions immunity as he's saying he won't voluntarily testify without "assurances". Those assurances would be... immunity. So a media story saying he hasn't offered to testify for immunity vs. a letter from his lawyer who says he can, a day after his request for immunity was rejected, probably isn't worth anything as it directly contradicts his lawyer's letter and the FBI.

Social media allows for too much unfiltered news where the credibility hasn't been verified and where "journalists" throw statements around quickly to be ride the wave of whatever's trending. And bullshit artists and propagandists on youtube with 0 ethical responsibility or journalistic integrity now have huge viewerships in the highly partisan world we live in. So it's not as though "alternative news sources" are any better than anything "traditional" media puts out, other than you can tell they probably don't have corporate interests at heart - but it's impossible to really verify what interests they do have at heart unless they're vocal about it.

It can be pretty easy to see if a story is bullshit if you question the stories and look into them with other, credible, stories. I suppose the biggest problem is determining what is credible.

[Dr. Gonzo]

As to any Muslim ban, I don't know why the fuck Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan aren't on there. Considering that's where most Muslim attackers in the US are fucking from, as opposed to the countries that are actually on the ban. But as with anything Donald Trump related, logic is not necessarily applicable.

[Fairy In Boots]

5 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

All media sources are pushing their own narratives, and have been since media sources have been a thing. That's why fact checking is important and whether these institutions have credibility and fact checking policies in place, rather than frivolously publishing stories (like say NBC, Fox, Daily Mail, CNN). His lawyer's letter mentions immunity as he's saying he won't voluntarily testify without "assurances". Those assurances would be... immunity. So a media story saying he hasn't offered to testify for immunity vs. a letter from his lawyer who says he can, a day after his request for immunity was rejected, probably isn't worth anything as it directly contradicts his lawyer's letter and the FBI.

Social media allows for too much unfiltered news where the credibility hasn't been verified and where "journalists" throw statements around quickly to be ride the wave of whatever's trending. And bullshit artists and propagandists on youtube with 0 ethical responsibility or journalistic integrity now have huge viewerships in the highly partisan world we live in. So it's not as though "alternative news sources" are any better than anything "traditional" media puts out, other than you can tell they probably don't have corporate interests at heart - but it's impossible to really verify what interests they do have at heart unless they're vocal about it.

It can be pretty easy to see if a story is bullshit if you question the stories and look into them with other, credible, stories. I suppose the biggest problem is determining what is credible.

Agree on them always pushing their own agendas but it seems journalistic standards aren't a thing anymore. 

Regarding immunity it doesn't say immunity it says assurances, that could be anything like a cross party panel, and independent investigation into the charges etc. I'm not denying there's leveraging behind the scenes but I'm sceptical about actually requesting immunity straight off. 

5 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

As to any Muslim ban, I don't know why the fuck Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan aren't on there. Considering that's where most Muslim attackers in the US are fucking from, as opposed to the countries that are actually on the ban. But as with anything Donald Trump related, logic is not necessarily applicable.

Saudi is blatantly about money and arms, it's why we're still in bed with the cunts, to many arms deals in place.

[Fairy In Boots]

14 hours ago, Danny said:

An Iraqi refugee was guilty of planting IEDs back in Iraq if I recall correctly, the government put a hold to all incoming Iraqi refugees until so it could improve their vetting process and then put those already in the States through that vetting process. That process ran its course and new Iraqi refugees were allowed in.

Its in no way comparable to Trump banning migration from nationals of seven Muslim countries, which was supported by his anti-Muslim rhetoric throughout his campaign.

The USA have that right, it's American judges deeming the means in which Trump is singling out Muslims illegal.

They're still allowed

[Dr. Gonzo]

1 hour ago, Fairy In Boots said:

Saudi is blatantly about money and arms, it's why we're still in bed with the cunts, to many arms deals in place.

They arm and fund ISIS. But we're okay with them because of arms. Trump approved a previously blocked sale of weapon arms to them. I find this hypocritical. To have Muslim bans from countries that aren't committing terrorist against the US, and even Iran who have a disgusting government but are actively fighting ISIS... while we back and arm those who back them. It's a fucking farce tbh.

[Harry]

22 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

So am I to trust the media? Or am I to trust Flynn's lawyer? And isn't that inconsistent coming from a critic of the media?

The house committee is one possibile avenue that would be offering deals and negotiation for information. The other main one is the Senate intelligence committee and that one has now leaked that they have rejected his request for immunity. 

 

 

[Dr. Gonzo]

1 hour ago, Harry said:

The house committee is one possibile avenue that would be offering deals and negotiation for information. The other main one is the Senate intelligence committee and that one has now leaked that they have rejected his request for immunity. 

 

 

I know, but someone was trying to deny that Flynn ever asked for immunity. Even though is lawyer said he wants to talk and wants assurances nothing will happen to him for talking (aka immunity).

[Harry]

Yep. I'm agreeing with you. It now seems  to be accepted that he's asked for immunity and that its been knocked back. 

I don't think its scandalous though nor that it means he'll be spilling major beans... 

[I8allthepies]

On April 1, 2017 at 6:13 PM, Dr. Gonzo said:

They arm and fund ISIS. But we're okay with them because of arms. Trump approved a previously blocked sale of weapon arms to them. I find this hypocritical. To have Muslim bans from countries that aren't committing terrorist against the US, and even Iran who have a disgusting government but are actively fighting ISIS... while we back and arm those who back them. It's a fucking farce tbh.

It's not really a ban, I wish people can get this straight, rolls off the tongue easier I guess. 

[Honey Honey]

Maybe Donny tiny hands should have called for a suspension instead of calling for a ban in his campaign then. The power difference between the two words, which pretty much mean the same thing, is entirely his own doing. 

[Dr. Gonzo]

4 hours ago, HoneyNUFC said:

Maybe Donny tiny hands should have called for a suspension instead of calling for a ban in his campaign then. The power difference between the two words, which pretty much mean the same thing, is entirely his own doing. 

It's almost as though the word choice of a World Leader is somewhat important in trying to evaluate their policies... WHO WOULD HAVE THOUGHT?!

[I8allthepies]

6 hours ago, HoneyNUFC said:

Maybe Donny tiny hands should have called for a suspension instead of calling for a ban in his campaign then. The power difference between the two words, which pretty much mean the same thing, is entirely his own doing. 

It's his duty and obligation to protect the US and the constituents. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182 

it's more of a holding period of anything. Those needing urgent care are still immediately rushed in to seek necessary treatment. Those who are stuck in the terminal still get fed hot meals and have a bed. 

[Spike]

It isn't a right to travel to other countries. It's a privilege. 

[SirBalon]

1 hour ago, Spike said:

It isn't a right to travel to other countries. It's a privilege. 

What?

Call it what you want but it ain't no privilege being able to travel to another country unless someone's paying for my stay and my ticket. It's a privilege for them to have me there spending money which keeps people in jobs and boosts the economy. Maybe I should be President of the USA. Now that I come to think of it, I've done more for the economy than Trump has... At least I've paid my taxes to the full put there on everything I've spent money on and not looked to "be smart" (imagine Trump's voice on that one!) and looked for loopholes on not contributing. 

[Spike]

6 minutes ago, SirBalon said:

What?

Call it what you want but it ain't no privilege being able to travel to another country unless someone's paying for my stay and my ticket. It's a privilege for them to have me there spending money which keeps people in jobs and boosts the economy. Maybe I should be President of the USA. Now that I come to think of it, I've done more for the economy than Trump has... At least I've paid my taxes to the full put there on everything I've spent money on and not looked to "be smart" (imagine Trump's voice on that one!) and looked for loopholes on not contributing. 

What give you the right to enter another country? Seems like you are measuring that with money. I'd pay nothing on taxes to any government if I had the financial ability  to do so.

[SirBalon]

3 minutes ago, Spike said:

What give you the right to enter another country? Seems like you are measuring that with money. I'd pay nothing on taxes to any government if I had the financial ability  to do so.

My passport gives me the right to enter another country.

I pay my way (money is what you use to pay things with).

So you'd pay nothing in taxes ey!

Really?

But you'd call the "cops" to help you out if someone's trying to break into your home with a shotgun ready to blow every single brain cell you have onto the wall behind you. You want that service for free and someone else to pay for the "privilege"!

How about everything else you use that is paid for by the tax payer? Want to negate on that?

Actually... Thinking about it another way in the more Trumponian manner... They can just get the Mexicans to pay for all that. 

[Spike]

8 minutes ago, SirBalon said:

My passport gives me the right to enter another country.

I pay my way (money is what you use to pay things with).

So you'd pay nothing in taxes ey!

Really?

But you'd call the "cops" to help you out if someone's trying to break into your home with a shotgun ready to blow every single brain cell you have onto the wall behind you. You want that service for free and someone else to pay for the "privilege"!

How about everything else you use that is paid for by the tax payer? Want to negate on that?

Actually... Thinking about it another way in the more Trumponian manner... They can just get the Mexicans to pay for all that. 

No it doesn't, it merely serves as an identification, you have no right to enter another person's property without consent and it's the same for a nation. You have no right to enter anywhere just because you show up with a passport.

Yeah, the cops are going to arrive within the few moments someone blows my brains out. What a terrible example.

Yes, there are many things I don't want my tax money paying for. For instance, the government grants given to wasteful research centres. $200,000 on why truckers are fat! How about the trillions of dollars being pumped into military spending? How about the millions of dollars lining into government official pay cheques? How about the government throwing money at public schooling instead of reforming it? Millions of a University project on a videogame about climate change?

So yeah, I'm sure the federal government can live without my chump change seeing they aren't even using it.

[Honey Honey]

10 hours ago, I8allthepies said:

It's his duty and obligation to protect the US and the constituents. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182 

it's more of a holding period of anything. Those needing urgent care are still immediately rushed in to seek necessary treatment. Those who are stuck in the terminal still get fed hot meals and have a bed. 

The words ban or suspension are perfectly suitable options. 

The issue here is simply one of cognitive dissonance. You can't hold the belief that Trump's policy is positive whilst also believing the word ban is negative. You have to either change your opinion on the connotation of words like ban and suspension or you have to deny their existence and come up with something gentle sounding like "holding pen".

Since Dr Gonzo and other Trump opponent's repeatedly use the word "ban" whilst expressing negative views of the Trump policy it leads to a total cop out. A cop out where the word "ban" is attacked to deligitimise the opponent's argument instead of bothering to engage with that actual argument.

 

[Danny]

On 04/04/2017 at 10:14 AM, Spike said:

It isn't a right to travel to other countries. It's a privilege. 

It's also not legal to ban (suspend if that makes anyone happier) people based on their religion, that is discrimination and against American law which Trump has found out.

[Spike]

1 hour ago, Danny said:

It's also not legal to ban (suspend if that makes anyone happier) people based on their religion, that is discrimination and against American law which Trump has found out.

What does that have to do with this? I agree with you and all but that isn't what I'm debating.

Money trumps religion (heh pun intended) that is why it isn't really a Muslim ban just a ban on certain Muslims. Otherwise the dear Saudi Princes would also be banned; the semantics is important because stating it to be a 'Muslim ban' is incorrect when it's entirely a 'selective Muslim ban '