Guess I was wrong, 15 were from Saudi Arabia. Also saying “we didn’t ban Saudi Arabia because they use other to do their dirty work” feels suuuuuuper flimsy (at best). If that’s true, we’re banning stooges/henchmen and letting in masterminds?
1 Like
Looks that way, huh?
I think its ridiculous too, but I’ve been pretty firmly planted in the “Nuke the whole fucking sub-continent” for about 26 years.
I prefer the “turn around and ignore the place for a year, and then buy oil from Israel.” method myself.
If you look at what they were able to take in 6 days in 1967 after they were attacked, then the rest of the world made them give it back. Imagine what they could do in a year.
The Jews are serious. They aren’t going back to the chambers.
Er…no. Israel wasn’t attacked in 1967 - Israel launched a preventive war - that’s why the entire Egyptian Air Force was wiped out on the ground in a couple of hours.
There’s no fucking way Israel is embarking on a mini-empire building in the ME like in 1967 for a myriad of reasons - military, political, economic… Even if you stretch “Judea and Samaria” to its maximum Biblical definition, you don’t come close to any significant chunk of the ME.
For the record, Israel abandoned the Sinai peninsula for a simple reason - the “land for peace” deal was signed because no Egyptian leader could accept Israel’s border so close to Cairo and hence Egyptians would continuously start war(s) at the earliest possible opportunity…
Also it seems that the 2006 Lebanon War against Hezbollah was a a reality check for the IDF, as combatants’ casualty ratios were significantly lower that in previous engagements against Arab foes.
1 Like
While I was speaking in hyperbole I do believe in a strong Israel.
They are our only reliable ally in the middle east (not SA, Iran, Pakistan, Turkey or Egypt). Every Arab/Syrian country hates them so they take the focus off attacking the west.
Also the Jews have been oppressed and maligned since the diaspora. They have been welcome nowhere and been the scapegoat for everything (including the black death). So let them have their little strip of land on the edge of the Mediterranean and let them defend it with an eye for an eye attitude.
1 Like
Yes, but I was just pointing out that Israel will not venture out past the 1967 borders (temporary forays into southern Lebanon excluded).
1 Like
Simply not true. They both had 5 executive orders in their first seven days.
Did you actually look at Obama’s first 5 EOs and what they do or just google the total number and dates? A further look at Obama’s EOs in the first 7 days kinda prove my point even more.
I agree with you, Saudi Arabia should be 1st on that list. [quote=“pfury, post:58, topic:226173”]
I feel like this part completely falls apart when you can pull up clips from idiots like Boehner and co who’s entire platform was based around making Obama a 1 term president and refusing to work with him regardless of content.
[/quote]
Obama never tried to work with any of the republicans. And every opposing party is trying to make sure the president not of their party serves a little time as possible. It’s obama’s needle that wouldn’t move, he didn’t even try. All he did was whine that republicans wouldn’t support his liberal ideas. A deal with obama is his way or the highway.
I will give him uncompromising. He stuck to his guns no matter what. I don’t recall a single time he compromised with the republican legislature. The problem is that his legacy is etched in invisible ink. Once they gut the ACA, his legacy will be ‘the guy who got Bin Laden’ and ‘first black President’. Which, actually, isn’t a bad legacy at all.
I agree Saudi Arabia should be first on the list, but we apparently have some deep political ties to that country to where even if we were to do an official muslim ban and ban every country that has a population 25% or higher of muslims, Saudi Arabia would still not be on the list.
I don’t pretend to know the depth of the U.S. interests there, but they apparently run deep. We have military bases there, obviously we do a lot of oil business with them and we have a lot of diplomatic relations with them. I don’t pretend to know the details, I just know as unjust as it may seem, the Saudis, as backward and draconian as they are, are our allies and our commitments are firm.
I don’t think he is being completely biased. My view is that it’s to give a ‘tough guy’ impression to the region. the countries on the list were easy pickin’s. They are dangerous regions, no doubt. But a 90 day travel ban is not going to stop a determined terrorist from coming into the country. It’s more about the optics.
But travel bans are neither new or unprecedented. And you cannot enforce anything permanent with executive orders.
People need to get a grip, though. A 90 ban, even if it were completely unreasonable to do is nothing to get your panties in a wad over. It’s half a sports season. You could get banned at the all-star break and be back for the play-offs. It’s a very tiny ban. Compare that to the Cuban travel ban that lasted for 50 odd years. That’s a ban.
And if the results is more efficient, better vetting process for potentially dangerous people, then it’s all for the better.
And like I said, 2 of the countries on that list should be permanent. Ain’t nobody from Somalia or Yemen need to be traveling here. That goes for any country that does not have a government.
That would get them learnt.
I don’t think you can look at the 6 day war in isolation. It’s neighbors have been trying to destroy it from day 1 in 1948. I am pretty sure they would argue that the preemption was a response and I would bet the case be good.
It’s not smart to make the people of the holocaust nervous about anything. They are damn determined to ensure it will never happen again and they don’t give a damn who does or does not like it.
Personally I think immediately setting that type of precedent sets a very dangerous tone. Abuse of power is probably the #1 concern most people have about Trump. If he waited until 3 years into his cycle, I’d be more inclined to agree with you.
2 Likes
Three years?
Trump’s motto should have been “ready, fire, aim” not MAGA. He will do alot of things very fast and make alot of mistakes.
1 Like
Maybe people forgot he had a 100 day plan, not a 1,000 day plan?
Do you think he issued the EOs to get things moving immediately and will follow up with legislative action?
I think he thrives on motion. Imagine owning that many hotels and cutting that many deals. The guy was probably in 10 cities per week. I don’t think he has the patience for this governing stuff.
Pluss EO’s give the president first-mover advantage.
1 Like
Not that he should have waited 3 years, just that it would have gone over better if he eased the American public into his “style” of governing.
This is unacceptable to me. You’re the leader of the free world. If I make lots of mistakes, I’ll get in trouble. If Trump makes lots of mistakes, people can stop having a pulse. One of my biggest problems with Trump is he seems to not appreciate the gravity of his position as he thinks it’s a step down from billionaire businessman.
1 Like
Actually, Trump’s reluctance to travel was legendary. He usually shuttled between several locations (Trump Tower and Mar-a-Lago being two od them).
Several business deals in Hong Kong that fell through (resulting in billion-dollar lawsuits) were in part due to his reluctance to come personally to HK.
This right here.
3 Likes
I think people are needlessly hysterical. Every thing he does is magnified 1000% by the media.
For instance, on bbc.com this is the front page headline:
Pakistan 'kills 100 militants' after Sufi shrine attack - BBC News
There was a major terrorist attack by ISIS, at the Sufi Shrine, in Pakistan and a subsequent major response. 80 people dead so far, while Pakistan went on a major offensive to round up militants around the country and beyond. This should be the headline everywhere. This is a major deal with major ramifications. There was yet another terrorist attack by these animals and in the U.S., no one even looks up. Hell, I don’t even see it reported. This is the top story section from CNN.com
Notice this says “Top Stories”, nary a mention of the terror attack anywhere. The attack happened yesterday and I only knew that because I checked foreign news sites who apparently have enough moral clarity to have their priorities strait.
The word Trump appears 21 times on the front page. Not even a mention of the Pakistani terror attack. Not even a blurb… All 9 of the top stories have something to do with Trump.
I mean, what the fuck? This looks psychotic. Most of the stories and op-ed pieces are about Trump. It’s a flat Trump obsession.
They want to tear him down so bad, that they are making him appear almost superhuman in his ability to get under people’s skin and do what he wants anyway and nobody can stop him. The more hysterical the reporting, the more he runs roughshod over them.
And the funny thing is Trump even wants them to stop. He hates the media and they are his best friend. With every hysterical outburst, he just gets bigger and more popular. It’s the darnedest thing I have ever seen. It’s a phenomenon I have never seen. Usually when the media wants to ruin somebody they do. With Trump, the opposite happens, he looms larger, he eats the shit like pac-man and just grows and feeds on it.
The media is Trump obsessed and the easiest, quickest way to take the air out is to stop talking about him. The best thing they could do, literally, is their job. Report the news. Just report the news. Put the political stuff in the usually spot and report the big stories that are happening in the world and country.
That’s the irony of this media machine, the more they fixate on Trump, the worse they do and the better he does. If they want to make him look human, they just need to shut up and report the news and quit fixating on him all the time.
I personally, would like to hear about and discuss other things. But the next big question is does Trump fart while he walks or does he have to stand there and push…
I really thought the obsession would have worn off by now.
The reason it hasn’t “worn off” is because it’s not going to. Your hatred of the media is blinding you quite a bit. Media or no media, Americans have legitimate concerns about Trump. These concerns might be exploded by the media, but they’d still exist regardless.
The wall and Trump’s stance on immigration is a BIG DEAL to progressive libs.
The repeal of ACA is a BIG FUCKING DEAL for literally millions of people.
Being worried about Trump’s objectivity and conflicts is a BIG DEAL to both sides of the fence.
You seem to have this notion that people aren’t going to have gripes if the media would just lay off. Regardless of whether or not you agree with these concerns, millions of Americans have them and Trump has done virtually nothing to quell the fears like a leader should be doing (another huge concern.
I personally haven’t watched MS media since election day, and prior to election day it had been probably 9 months. I have big concerns about all the things I listed, am I being controlled by a media that I barely acknowledge?
1 Like