Politics & Stuff

[kmk108 1,186]

3 minutes ago, Peace. said:

Are you thick or did you have merely misread what I have written ? Here it is for you : "Trump is not banning Saudi and what ?! Is it because he is doing a mistake in regards to this country that it should be open door for everyone ?"

I am saying that not banning Saudi Arabia is a mistake — it does mean what it means, no ? To interpret my sentence as me saying I have no problem with Saudi is... quite surprising — but never mind. The point I am trying to explain here is that it is not because he does not want — or cannot — to ban people coming from Saudi Arabia that he has to do the same with every other countries that reprensent a threat for your citizens...

... because making a mistake has never ever repaired another mistake.

I'm not thick. Maybe try not being a prick next time. I misunderstood it because it was written poorly. I've read that short paragraph multiple times and I still can't fully figure out what the hell it is you're trying to say.

And I still can't figure out your reasoning. If he's able to ban these seven countries, why isn't he just putting a blanket ban on all the countries in the Middle East? Why has he conveniently left out the countries that he is doing business with?

[Spike 12,049]

47 minutes ago, Sir Mikel OBE said:

Fundamentally weird views does not mean people are not integrated. This was a nation founded by the musket, no shock a minority of muslims would believe this such actions would be acceptable.

 

I look at Muslim Americans and see the doctor, the engineer, the small business owner.  This looks like America to me.

 

They come here and join the melting pot. Even People with French mothers, Such as Spud's Assou Ekotto, says he never was viewed as French as a kid growing up. Thats a main difference. US gets people ready to make a bet in this system. France, simply doesnt.  Sudan doesnt have a soft spot for Terrorists anymore than any other nation. They harbored Bin Laden, but which nation hasn't? We have Cuban terrorists over here right now who will NEVER be brought to justice for their crimes. This is a part of international politics.

 

Long as their views don't infringe upon my rights(a la Bannon) I have no issue with opinions I don't agree with. We all have a right to our opinion

Yes it does. If a personally has a fundamentally weird view that in their minds justifies paedophilia; they are not integrated into American society. America was not founded by the musket, it was founded by hard working and industrious Anglos and Dutch that cultivated a society of success which would develope America into the world's leading power five hundred or so years later. America is not a militarised society and never has been.

I look at Muslim Americans and see nothing, because I don't assume anything about people. I know that 13% (give or take) support suicide bombing but that does not mean I believe that any Muslim I meet believes or disbelieves that notion.

America is not a melting pot. It is a fairly homogeneous culture that has had great success assimilating the best parts of many cultures into it. 

Sudan is one of the worst nations in the world. Slavery, genital mutilation, death penalty for apostasy, amongst other things. I'd say the threat of death for religion fits nicely under government and cultural terrorism.

Just because something exists doesn't grant it the right to exist.

[Sir Mikel OBE 4,757]

11 minutes ago, Spike said:

Yes it does. If a personally has a fundamentally weird view that in their minds justifies paedophilia; they are not integrated into American society. America was not founded by the musket, it was founded by hard working and industrious Anglos and Dutch that cultivated a society of success which would develope America into the world's leading power five hundred or so years later. America is not a militarised society and never has been.

I look at Muslim Americans and see nothing, because I don't assume anything about people. I know that 13% (give or take) support suicide bombing but that does not mean I believe that any Muslim I meet believes or disbelieves that notion.

America is not a melting pot. It is a fairly homogeneous culture that has had great success assimilating the best parts of many cultures into it. 

Sudan is one of the worst nations in the world. Slavery, genital mutilation, death penalty for apostasy, amongst other things. I'd say the threat of death for religion fits nicely under government and cultural terrorism.

Just because something exists doesn't grant it the right to exist.

I was under the impression that Islamic law states that a man cannot have sex with his wife until she has passed  puberty, thus it would not advocate pedophilia? I am no expert on Islamic law though so what I know of it is just what I have picked up along the way.

 

Assumptions, like generalizations, are not always true but it does hold some weight in areas. Muslims, at least in our areas, represent a large part of specialized fields that are populated by people who have a high expectation of education I can relate to from my background. This is integration in my eyes, and something I can accept from them.

 

America is highly militarized, especially compared to other nations of equivalent position in the world. We gained our independence through war, our position in the world was gained through war, and our power is maintained by war. A reality so true to us that even our second amendment is our right to bear arms. I always like looking at the shock on people, overseas at least, face when I tell them my high and middle schools have officers with guns patrolling them during our school day. There was hard work, but it wasn't that alone which made the Brits back off and stop stealing American sailors after 1812.

 

I'd say we are a melting pot for the most part. Sure, there is an American Identity, but even then that manifests itself in different ways for different people.  Growing up when I would visit my black,white, or Hispanic friends houses we were all Americans, but our households were ran very differently. We all were raised with unique cultures that made us what we were, and in turn we carried this culture with us as our identities as Americans were shaped. Add in different religions and regions into this and I imagine the culture becomes even more diverse.

 

You'll get no argument from me on Sudan being terrible. 

[Peace. 4,352]

1 hour ago, kmk108 said:

I'm not thick. Maybe try not being a prick next time. I misunderstood it because it was written poorly. I've read that short paragraph multiple times and I still can't fully figure out what the hell it is you're trying to say.

And I still can't figure out your reasoning. If he's able to ban these seven countries, why isn't he just putting a blanket ban on all the countries in the Middle East? Why has he conveniently left out the countries that he is doing business with?

 

Because countries in the Middle East don't represent the same level of danger.

The IS has established a "Khilafa" in Iraq and Syria and has at his disposal thousands of fighters ; furthermore it was estimated that there were, in those two countries, between 200 000 and 400 000 of foreign fighters. As a matter of fact, it is the place which represents the biggest threat.

Then you have Yemen which is probably the most dangerous place (in reagrds to islamic terrorists) after the Sham. It is of course AQPA's backyard and they have even established an islamic Emirate (which has been destroyed I believe). The IS has also tried to establish a caliphate there but is failed.

Then you have Libya where islamists are fighting against islamists and this country represents an even bigger stake than any other country because it is in the middle of a dangerous region. On the West there is the Muslim Brotherrhod in Tunisia and there is Al-Qā'Idah roaming between Algeria, Libya and Mali. A little further South, you have Boko Haram and the vast region of central Africa which is one hell of unstable region. Then on the Eastern side, you have the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood ; and the terrorist organisations that roam from Sudan to Somalia.

My knowledge regarding Somalia and especially Sudan is limited. Even though, in regards to Somalia, terrorist organisations have been active in the country since a very long time and instability in this region means bad news for international trade. As for Sudan, I guess it is more or less the same reasons I have mentioned for Somalia... Plus, these two countries can easily be used as rear base for islamic terrorists waging war in Yemen... Or it could become their "safe haven" in case they have to flee from Yemen (or even from the Sham). Furthermore, Sudan hodls a dangerous position : it can become the link between Libya and Yemen (and you can add the MB from Egypt).

In regards to Iran, it is self explanatory. The country has been the enemy of the U.S. since a very long time and organisations linked to it are considered by the U.S. as terrorist organisation. That being said I presume that Iran is a completely different case than the six other countries and that the aims concerning this country are differents.

 

The level of danger having be established, what are the governmental stabilities in those countries ?

It is quite easy to answer. The governments of Syria, Iraq, Yemen and Somalia have no control over the territory controlled by the islamic terrorist organisations. In regards to Sudan I am not sure ; it is either like the four other, or terrorists are "protected" by the governments. As for Libya, well, there is no government and no country. In regards to Iran, there is a stable government but the U.S. have no possibility to control it and as I have already said, it is a different business.

These governmental instabilities imply that you can absolutely have no control over what comes out of these countries. And thus, terrorists can easily exploit this weakness to send as refugees, or mere citizens, jihadists to the U.S. On the contrary, countries such as Turkey or Saudi Arabia — regardless of their implication in international jihadism —  have control over their population and their territory and thus they can serve as filter whereas countries such as Libya cannot.

 

Conclusion

To sum up, Syria, Iraq, Yemen and Libya represent the biggest stake in this war against terrorism because those are countries full of terrorists who controle large portions of territory — and have independante source of financing, as the IS who is in possession of oil field and who has a quite important agricultural production. Yet if you want to be efficient in your war against them, you will have to attack their potential rear bases otherwise they will comeback as soon as you leave the region ; and those rear base are potentially in Sudan and Somalia.

But the problem is that islamic terrorists will not bend the back and they will not let you kill them — they will try to hurt you too... And it happens that their modus operandi is to kill your civilians on your own territory. This means that any action taken against the IS (or against the other groups) will have to be followed by measures to protect your citizens. Because you know that if tomorrow you strike the snake will hit back the very next day.

Controlling people coming from Turkey and Saudi Arabia is "quite" easy. Actually, despite its deep implication in the jihad in Syria, Turkey has prevented a lot of jihadists to come back in Europe (most jihadists we are sending to jail in France have been actually arrested by Turkey).

On the contrary, you cannot control people that comes from Syria, Iraq, Libya, Sudan, Yemen or Somalia — those countries are a mess, are stuffed of jihadists and they are the countries which you will attack. All in all, it is pure logic : strike the IS where it is and, as you know it will come at you, prevent people from these regions to come on your territory in order to reduce the risk of retaliation.

And regardless of all of which I have explained above, it is not because you are making a mistake by not banning Saudi Arabia that you should do the same mistake with other countries... Even though it is not necessarily a mistake because there is a clear strategic and tactical logic behind banning this country instead of that country.

[CHOULO19 24,332]

The ban has absolutely nothing to do with safety and security, if anything it will only make the US more hated in the world. Even if you ignore human rights and follow Trumps bigoted logic (which you shouldn't) the countries banned don't make any sense:

Trump did not select the countries, Obama did and his thinking was not to protect US citizens but to put political pressure on those countries that were not conforming to US policies and imperial interests.

It's very simple why Trump and many republicans support such insane ideas as extending Obama's bans onto everyone including green card holders: first it feeds into the fear-mongering and usvsthem mentality that they can't exist without and secondly immigrants consistently vote left wing. I can't be arsed to find the stats now but a higher percentage of Muslim Americans consistently vote Democrat than any demographic (Jews, Hispanic...etc.) except black.

There is no logical way that this ban is about anything to do with terrorist attacks. The existing system of background checks after 9/11 already more than covers the dangers. Here is the terrorist attack threat by immigrants on US soil in context:

 

[kmk108 1,186]

Since Nike will be our sponsors next season

 

[kmk108 1,186]

13 hours ago, Peace. said:

 

Because countries in the Middle East don't represent the same level of danger.

The IS has established a "Khilafa" in Iraq and Syria and has at his disposal thousands of fighters ; furthermore it was estimated that there were, in those two countries, between 200 000 and 400 000 of foreign fighters. As a matter of fact, it is the place which represents the biggest threat.

Then you have Yemen which is probably the most dangerous place (in reagrds to islamic terrorists) after the Sham. It is of course AQPA's backyard and they have even established an islamic Emirate (which has been destroyed I believe). The IS has also tried to establish a caliphate there but is failed.

Then you have Libya where islamists are fighting against islamists and this country represents an even bigger stake than any other country because it is in the middle of a dangerous region. On the West there is the Muslim Brotherrhod in Tunisia and there is Al-Qā'Idah roaming between Algeria, Libya and Mali. A little further South, you have Boko Haram and the vast region of central Africa which is one hell of unstable region. Then on the Eastern side, you have the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood ; and the terrorist organisations that roam from Sudan to Somalia.

My knowledge regarding Somalia and especially Sudan is limited. Even though, in regards to Somalia, terrorist organisations have been active in the country since a very long time and instability in this region means bad news for international trade. As for Sudan, I guess it is more or less the same reasons I have mentioned for Somalia... Plus, these two countries can easily be used as rear base for islamic terrorists waging war in Yemen... Or it could become their "safe haven" in case they have to flee from Yemen (or even from the Sham). Furthermore, Sudan hodls a dangerous position : it can become the link between Libya and Yemen (and you can add the MB from Egypt).

In regards to Iran, it is self explanatory. The country has been the enemy of the U.S. since a very long time and organisations linked to it are considered by the U.S. as terrorist organisation. That being said I presume that Iran is a completely different case than the six other countries and that the aims concerning this country are differents.

 

The level of danger having be established, what are the governmental stabilities in those countries ?

It is quite easy to answer. The governments of Syria, Iraq, Yemen and Somalia have no control over the territory controlled by the islamic terrorist organisations. In regards to Sudan I am not sure ; it is either like the four other, or terrorists are "protected" by the governments. As for Libya, well, there is no government and no country. In regards to Iran, there is a stable government but the U.S. have no possibility to control it and as I have already said, it is a different business.

These governmental instabilities imply that you can absolutely have no control over what comes out of these countries. And thus, terrorists can easily exploit this weakness to send as refugees, or mere citizens, jihadists to the U.S. On the contrary, countries such as Turkey or Saudi Arabia — regardless of their implication in international jihadism —  have control over their population and their territory and thus they can serve as filter whereas countries such as Libya cannot.

 

Conclusion

To sum up, Syria, Iraq, Yemen and Libya represent the biggest stake in this war against terrorism because those are countries full of terrorists who controle large portions of territory — and have independante source of financing, as the IS who is in possession of oil field and who has a quite important agricultural production. Yet if you want to be efficient in your war against them, you will have to attack their potential rear bases otherwise they will comeback as soon as you leave the region ; and those rear base are potentially in Sudan and Somalia.

But the problem is that islamic terrorists will not bend the back and they will not let you kill them — they will try to hurt you too... And it happens that their modus operandi is to kill your civilians on your own territory. This means that any action taken against the IS (or against the other groups) will have to be followed by measures to protect your citizens. Because you know that if tomorrow you strike the snake will hit back the very next day.

Controlling people coming from Turkey and Saudi Arabia is "quite" easy. Actually, despite its deep implication in the jihad in Syria, Turkey has prevented a lot of jihadists to come back in Europe (most jihadists we are sending to jail in France have been actually arrested by Turkey).

On the contrary, you cannot control people that comes from Syria, Iraq, Libya, Sudan, Yemen or Somalia — those countries are a mess, are stuffed of jihadists and they are the countries which you will attack. All in all, it is pure logic : strike the IS where it is and, as you know it will come at you, prevent people from these regions to come on your territory in order to reduce the risk of retaliation.

And regardless of all of which I have explained above, it is not because you are making a mistake by not banning Saudi Arabia that you should do the same mistake with other countries... Even though it is not necessarily a mistake because there is a clear strategic and tactical logic behind banning this country instead of that country.

Thank you for a well thought out reply after I called you a prick 

You're more knowledgeable of the ins and outs of ISIS in these countries. But I'm still convinced this was done in an effort to start the war on Islam. Rudy Giuliani himself said Trump wanted a way to legally ban MUSLIMS (not people from countries that could pose a danger) but he wanted to legally ban MUSLIMS. When he was advised that this is religious bigotry, they shifted to "danger".

[BoyBlue96 990]

Muslims aren't being banned for Christ sake. Muslims from Turkey and other countries that aren't on Trumps list can enter the USA. Obama did this and no one made a fuss about it, now Trump, who's being painted of as Adolf Hitler by left-wing media, does this and everybody loses their minds. It's incredible. It's hypocritical. Suddenly total nobodies who stand far, FAR away from society like Ashton Kutcher stand up and speak out against Trump with romantic stuff like "Everybody is welcome in my America!". No. Not everybody is welcome. You want to keep extremist Muslims out of your country, and if that's the thing Trump does than he has my support.

This does not mean I am against Islam or religion or something. I have studied Islam and it's history and the Arabic world's history so I know what I'm talking about. Here in Holland there is a huge problem under the foreigners. The Turkish and Moroccan youth who aren't raised properly by their parents. I think, if they'd be raised with MORE Islam, their wouldn't be so much problem with them in our society. 

[Spike 12,049]

17 hours ago, Sir Mikel OBE said:

I was under the impression that Islamic law states that a man cannot have sex with his wife until she has passed  puberty, thus it would not advocate pedophilia? I am no expert on Islamic law though so what I know of it is just what I have picked up along the way.

 

Assumptions, like generalizations, are not always true but it does hold some weight in areas. Muslims, at least in our areas, represent a large part of specialized fields that are populated by people who have a high expectation of education I can relate to from my background. This is integration in my eyes, and something I can accept from them.

 

America is highly militarized, especially compared to other nations of equivalent position in the world. We gained our independence through war, our position in the world was gained through war, and our power is maintained by war. A reality so true to us that even our second amendment is our right to bear arms. I always like looking at the shock on people, overseas at least, face when I tell them my high and middle schools have officers with guns patrolling them during our school day. There was hard work, but it wasn't that alone which made the Brits back off and stop stealing American sailors after 1812.

 

I'd say we are a melting pot for the most part. Sure, there is an American Identity, but even then that manifests itself in different ways for different people.  Growing up when I would visit my black,white, or Hispanic friends houses we were all Americans, but our households were ran very differently. We all were raised with unique cultures that made us what we were, and in turn we carried this culture with us as our identities as Americans were shaped. Add in different religions and regions into this and I imagine the culture becomes even more diverse.

 

You'll get no argument from me on Sudan being terrible. 

I wasn't talking about Islam, I was just using a hypothetical example. Though it should be noted there are major issues in Pakistan and Afghanistan concerning paedophilia. Just as you, I'm no expert on the subject; so I can't say for sure where the lines of culture and Islam cross over; you should look into it; really nasty stuff. A fellow I know that served in the US Marines for a decade stated that US army personnel were told not to intervene when issues like domestic violence, rape, sexual abuse, etc were happening. 'Just turn a blind eye'. You may disagree but many nations are failed states with failed cultures; there are always outliers but nothing is made equal. It's a sad reality but not everyone can integrate but for those that do, fantastic. I've nothing against Islam (like all religions it can change, adapt and bend to modern society), but I do question very deeply the culture of the nations where fundamental-Islam tends to flourish. The culture of Saudi Arabia for example is an antithesis to the USA. I don't give a toss if a Saudi is a closet Atheist, if he identifies with the culture of Saudi, then it raises red-flags for me. There are extremists all over the world but the socio-economic issues of the middle-east tends to propagate extremism.

If that is your barometre for a militarised society then nearly every nation in the history of humanity falls under that. I can give you a few examples; Switzerland had a huge economy based on mercenaries, Prussia, French Revolution, Great Leap Forward, Bolshevik Revolution, British Colonialism, three Japanese civil wars, Cuban Revolution, Yugoslavic War, Crusades, Jihads, Vietnam War, Korean War, 1st French Empire, Sudanese Civil War, and even Australia and New Zealand's cultural identity was forged in the World Wars. As far as I'm concerned there has been very few militarised societies in human history (Sparta, Prussia, Mongols, Sengoku and Edo-Japan for example). The USA was born from a lot less blood than many older civilisations. 

There is more to a culture than how a household is ran. Just because you eat different foods and have different rules doesn't mean you don't follow the same American morality or culture. Diversity is ultimately a weakness for any nation, because if a nation is pulled into four different directions it is just drawn and quartered. Divide and conquer, that is how nations are destroyed. Drive a wedge in between a social class, an ethnic group or a language group and you've got issues. People are strong with a common identity, it doesn't matter what sort of sub-culture or minor difference you observe at the home. An East-Coaster and a Southerner still have far more in common with each other than a Nigerian. I'm against the dilution of culture, I'd rather a world where American, Brazilians, Japanese, Koreans, Australians, English, French, South-African and Turks all have their differences. Though not all cultures are created equally and I don't particularly miss the cannibalism of many Polynesian peoples.

 

 

[kmk108 1,186]

1 hour ago, BoyBlue96 said:

Muslims aren't being banned for Christ sake. Muslims from Turkey and other countries that aren't on Trumps list can enter the USA. Obama did this and no one made a fuss about it, now Trump, who's being painted of as Adolf Hitler by left-wing media, does this and everybody loses their minds. It's incredible. It's hypocritical. Suddenly total nobodies who stand far, FAR away from society like Ashton Kutcher stand up and speak out against Trump with romantic stuff like "Everybody is welcome in my America!". No. Not everybody is welcome. You want to keep extremist Muslims out of your country, and if that's the thing Trump does than he has my support.

This does not mean I am against Islam or religion or something. I have studied Islam and it's history and the Arabic world's history so I know what I'm talking about. Here in Holland there is a huge problem under the foreigners. The Turkish and Moroccan youth who aren't raised properly by their parents. I think, if they'd be raised with MORE Islam, their wouldn't be so much problem with them in our society. 

This comparison to Obama is ridiculous

Quote

1. Much narrower focus: The Obama administration conducted a review in 2011 of the vetting procedures applied to citizens of a single country (Iraq) and then only to refugees and applicants for Special Immigrant Visas (SIVs), created by Congress to help Iraqis (and later Afghans) who supported the United States in those conflicts. The Trump executive order, on the other hand, applies to seven countries with total population more than 130 million, and to virtually every category of immigrant other than diplomats, including tourists and business travelers.

2. Not a ban: Contrary to Trump’s Sunday statement and the repeated claims of his defenders, the Obama administration did not “ban visas for refugees from Iraq for six months.” For one thing, refugees don’t travel on visas. More importantly, while the flow of Iraqi refugees slowed significantly during the Obama administration’s review, refugees continued to be admitted to the United States during that time, and there was not a single month in which no Iraqis arrived here. In other words, while there were delays in processing, there was no outright ban.

3. Grounded in specific threat: The Obama administration’s 2011 review came in response to specific threat information, including the arrest in Kentucky of two Iraqi refugees, still the only terrorism-related arrests out of about 130,000 Iraqi refugees and SIV holders admitted to the United States. Thus far, the Trump administration has provided no evidence, nor even asserted, that any specific information or intelligence has led to its draconian order.

4. Orderly, organized process: The Obama administration’s review was conducted over roughly a dozen deputies and principals committee meetings, involving Cabinet and deputy Cabinet-level officials from all of the relevant departments and agencies — including the State, Homeland Security and Justice Departments — and the intelligence community. The Trump executive order was reportedly drafted by White House political officials and then presented to the implementing agencies a fait accompli. This is not just bad policymaking practice, it led directly to the confusion, bordering on chaos, that has attended implementation of the order by agencies that could only start asking questions (such as: “does this apply to green card holders?”) once the train had left the station.

5. Far stronger vetting today: Much has been made of Trump’s call for “extreme vetting” for citizens of certain countries. The entire purpose of the Obama administration’s 2011 review was to enhance the already stringent vetting to which refugees and SIV applicants were subjected. While many of the details are classified, those rigorous procedures, which lead to waiting times of 18-24 months for many Iraqi and Syrian refugees, remain in place today and are continually reviewed by interagency officials. The Trump administration is, therefore, taking on a problem that has already been (and is continually being) addressed.

http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/01/30/sorry-mr-president-the-obama-administration-did-nothing-similar-to-your-immigration-ban/

[BoyBlue96 990]

Just now, kmk108 said:

This comparison to Obama is ridiculous

http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/01/30/sorry-mr-president-the-obama-administration-did-nothing-similar-to-your-immigration-ban/

Obama did the same thing. 

[kmk108 1,186]

Just now, BoyBlue96 said:

Obama did the same thing. 

Read what I quoted. It's not the same thing.

[Spike 12,049]

44 minutes ago, kmk108 said:

Read what I quoted. It's not the same thing.

Obama did it both times. Both bans are were created by the Obama administration, the only difference between the first and last is that Trump put the second into action.

[CHOULO19 24,332]

2 hours ago, BoyBlue96 said:

Muslims aren't being banned for Christ sake. Muslims from Turkey and other countries that aren't on Trumps list can enter the USA. Obama did this and no one made a fuss about it, now Trump, who's being painted of as Adolf Hitler by left-wing media, does this and everybody loses their minds. It's incredible. It's hypocritical. Suddenly total nobodies who stand far, FAR away from society like Ashton Kutcher stand up and speak out against Trump with romantic stuff like "Everybody is welcome in my America!". No. Not everybody is welcome. You want to keep extremist Muslims out of your country, and if that's the thing Trump does than he has my support.

This does not mean I am against Islam or religion or something. I have studied Islam and it's history and the Arabic world's history so I know what I'm talking about. Here in Holland there is a huge problem under the foreigners. The Turkish and Moroccan youth who aren't raised properly by their parents. I think, if they'd be raised with MORE Islam, their wouldn't be so much problem with them in our society. 

There are PLENTY of people and activists who opposed Obama's immigration actions (in terms of South American refugees his record is worse than any US president in history). The main difference is that only people who pay very close attention knew what Obama was doing while now every single thing Trump does gets hours upon hours of coverage because he gets ratings.

Other differences is that Trump is doing this literally in his first week in office when the vast majority of US citizens are still highly involved in politics, He also did it so suddenly and without prior notice so you ended up with loads of people stuck at airports not knowing what to do which never makes for good PR. Then you have movements like BLM and Occupy who are now very experienced in organizing and getting people to show within a few hours notice on social media. Many more factors.

[Spike 12,049]

1 hour ago, CHOULO19 said:

There are PLENTY of people and activists who opposed Obama's immigration actions (in terms of South American refugees his record is worse than any US president in history). The main difference is that only people who pay very close attention knew what Obama was doing while now every single thing Trump does gets hours upon hours of coverage because he gets ratings.

Other differences is that Trump is doing this literally in his first week in office when the vast majority of US citizens are still highly involved in politics, He also did it so suddenly and without prior notice so you ended up with loads of people stuck at airports not knowing what to do which never makes for good PR. Then you have movements like BLM and Occupy who are now very experienced in organizing and getting people to show within a few hours notice on social media. Many more factors.

Obama also had the media in his pocket and a personality cult. They were deathly afraid of criticising him and rabidly defended him when he was. The fact that there are people in the States with Obama number stickers, t-shirts, etc. is actually quite a concerning phenomenon. I think people are a lot more tolerant of dictators than they realise. In saying that though, I do draw a line in difference between having a 'Hope' shirt during the '07 election to wearing an Obama shirt in 2016. Getting caught up in the campaign storm is very different to outright adoration. If people still unironically wear a MAGA hat in a couple months, then I'd start worrying.

It's funny really, Obama deported more Mexicans than any other presidente. 

[CHOULO19 24,332]

14 minutes ago, Spike said:

Obama also had the media in his pocket and a personality cult. They were deathly afraid of criticising him and rabidly defended him when he was. The fact that there are people in the States with Obama number stickers, t-shirts, etc. is actually quite a concerning phenomenon. I think people are a lot more tolerant of dictators than they realise. In saying that though, I do draw a line in difference between having a 'Hope' shirt during the '07 election to wearing an Obama shirt in 2016. Getting caught up in the campaign storm is very different to outright adoration. If people still unironically wear a MAGA hat in a couple months, then I'd start worrying.

It's funny really, Obama deported more Mexicans than any other presidente. 

That's the danger of having an establishment Democrat in the white house; it just silences any resistance. Obama was on a completely different level because of 'charisma', but it's basically true everywhere that centrist politicians usually get less scrutiny and end up doing far worse right wingers.

We've experienced it here first hand. The worst atrocities committed by the Israeli army in Lebanon are almost always under supposedly left wing Israeli governments. 

[kmk108 1,186]

1 hour ago, Spike said:

Obama did it both times. Both bans are were created by the Obama administration, the only difference between the first and last is that Trump put the second into action.

I don't think one was created by the Obama administration. They just flagged the seven nations as "high risk" or something along those lines. Everything else is thanks to the Trump administration. And again, Obama's "ban" wasn't even a ban (unless you can show me otherwise).

[CHOULO19 24,332]

Also, the lack of media coverage for the terrorist attack on a Mosque in Canada seemingly by a white supremacist is shocking even by my incredibly low expectations of US media.