Trump Skeptical about Global Warming due to Humans

[frugalkoenig]

Originally Posted by Draigflag

"I Donald J Trump am calling for a complete ban on all Muslims into the United States"

Those were his exact words if I remember correctly, and no doubt they were his exact intentions too.

The quote is

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

He thereafter began naming all sorts of muslims to whom it would not applied. Do you have any doubt that he intended those exceptions as well?

Originally Posted by Draigflag

Why deliver it in such a demoralising offensive way?

Because it isn't demoralizing or offensive to populations that don't prefer to deal with problematic immigrant populations. That isn't an irrational preference.

Originally Posted by Draigflag

Why even mention "Muslims" why not just tell people he was considering a temporary travel ban from citizens of countries where terrorism is very active?

Because it isn't a travel ban, let alone a ban on citizens from those countries. Muslims are mentioned because of their relationship to caliphism.

Originally Posted by Draigflag

Is Ireland included? They must be the terror capital of Europe, car bombs and uncovered terror plots almost every week, both religious and political motives, but those stories might offend the Irish heritage in the US, ...

And also because irish immigration isn't an issue brought to light by the images of syrians surging into europe and HRC signalling open doors for these populations. Yes, part of the irish-american population is a problem. Who wants two of those problems? If you can't place the context of the actual quote, you may misconstrue its meaning.

Originally Posted by Draigflag

... and don't help the islamophibic population in the US build thier hate, so probably don't get aired.

Since there is a rational basis for opposing caliphism, it isn't a phobia. "Islamophobia" doesn't accurately describe a significant force in american politics. You can cite "hate", but hatred of the intentional murder and maiming of civilians is reasonable.

[Draigflag]

You're entitled to your opinion, I'm entitled to mine, it's pretty obvious you voted for Trump, you are extremely defensive of his poor actions, and the poor delivery of his actions thus far, but I'm not judging you for doing so.

[R.I.D.E.]

You "judged him as a Trump voter", Judged actions as "poor", judged His "defensiveness" as due to your own preconcieved "judgement" of something of which you have no proof or even, outside of your pitifully biased opinions, the slightest amount of evidence.

What was it you did "NOT" judge LMAO?

[frugalkoenig]

Originally Posted by Draigflag

You're entitled to your opinion, I'm entitled to mine, ...

You are entitled to you own opinion, but not your own facts. DJT's statements are a matter of public record, and description immigration policy with a rational basis as a "phobia" is sophomoric.

Originally Posted by Draigflag

...it's pretty obvious you voted for Trump,...

In fact, I've voted against DJT more often than you have. The difference between us is, at least in part, knowledge of the topic. That's not a gratuitous person dig; I live in the US and followed the election from before DJT's announcement of his candidacy.

Originally Posted by Draigflag

...you are extremely defensive of his poor actions, ...

In fact, I'm not. Dispelling your misconceptions about what the man actually said and the substance of the EO is accuracy, not defensiveness.

You have mistaken my clarification for support of the EO itself. I am not at all sure that Iraq belongs on the list of seven, but that doesn't make placing it on the list irrational. People can have policy differences without being "phobic".

Assuming the worst motives of those with whom one has a difference substitutes malicious speculation for knowledge of politics and policy; it serves no good end.

Originally Posted by Draigflag

... but I'm not judging you for doing so.

You will now understand that this conveys less generosity than you may have intended.

[ChewChewTrain]

Oh, brother. (rolling eyes) You guys are STILL at it?

Someone gave some good advice about internet disagreements. You each give 2 "swings" at each other. Done. Drop it. Move on.

[trollbait]

Originally Posted by frugalkoenig

You may judge the US to have been "fine" without a moratorium on routine administrative processing, but that one doesn't share an enthusiasm for a specific security measure doesn't render it unreasonable.

The processing for six of the seven named countries wasn't simply routine, but some of the strictest in the world. Reviewing it isn't unreasonable though. Yet seeing how it has been effective to this point, a review doesn't require halting travel from those places.

DJT clearly announced that he would seek to reduce immigration before he was elected. He was elected, and is now doing what one might have anticipated he would do if elected. Pandering? That's how representative government is supposed to work.

Travel and immigration are two different things. The EO's 90 day ban on travel has only delayed the process for those seeking to immigrate. For those coming on vacation or to visit American relatives, whose visas were cancelled in it mid-flight, it robbed them of the funds for airfare.

There are effective ways of getting things done, and there are ineffective ways. With the confusion on how to implement this EO, and courts shutting it down on appeal, this was definitely the latter.

Originally Posted by Draigflag

When you're a powerful person who has huge global influences and of whoms decisions can influence and affect people in all corners of the globe, you have to deliver things a certain way.

"I Donald J Trump am calling for a complete ban on all Muslims into the United States"

I would not be surprised if Trump's tweets are being used against him in the courts.