Trump 'to sign orders restricting refugees from Muslim nations'

Through the use of executive orders to achieve what is not normally achieved via executive order but rather Congress.

Obama did it and it was wrong. Trump did it and it's wrong.


"Just the opposite would seem to be the case" is definitely not correct.

this isnt true as you well know - the jews were defeated by mohammed and the arabs first and then persians and then the turks - while they were successfully subjigated yes there was 'peace' of sorts. at the expense of the jewish self determination. the reality was islamically inspired imperialsm met its match in european imperialism




so it seems odd that you (and im sure most other muslims) wish to make the song and dance about the 250+ years of imperialism of the west of the past and indeed their 120 years of invading of countries you have personally no ethnic connection too, purely becuase they are 'muslim populated'

and yet they 1200 or so years of muslim armies raping and pillaging through the lands your ancestors called home and removing their far older culture for the imposition of arabic culture , is of no bother to you. i cant really establish if this widespread trait is due to lack of education or generational indoctrination and brainwashing

as i stated in a reply to someone else - saudi arabia is noticeably absent from a list of terrorist producing countries - and this prob has more to do with US financial interests ( and trumps own interests in the Gulf). howevr also relevant is that there are relatively low number of migrants coming from the gulf wealthy states. Pakistans ommission is probably the hardest to explain

you seem to be chasing your tail on two conflicting arguments - blaming usa for militarily removing a dictator in iraq but also whinging that they didnt remove another dictator in syria. if you are trying to sit in an ivory tower of pretend morality - you need to try and be consistent. for what its worth - noone could rightly expect the usa to not maintain its own interests in internal action - trump is simply being blatant about that fact. unfortuantly regular muslims have been caught in the middle of a lot of crap - but this is much bigger and older than the usa - it si namely the islamic conflict of shia v sunni almost dating back almost to the end of mohammed, that has caused majority of suffering in the muslim world. usa is just sticking its oar into an already screwed up situation

That's not really centalizing power though is it?

If an Executive order is suspected of being unconstitutional it can be reviewed in the courts and struck down.
There is nothing "wrong "about Executive Orders.

You still havent told me while Trump is a statist.

statist
ˈsteɪtɪst/
noun
noun: statist; plural noun: statists

1.
an advocate of a political system in which the state has substantial centralized control over social and economic affairs.

Saudi arabis irrelevant? Isn't that the main source of extremist ideologies,so how can they be irrelevant? How can funding terrorists in Syria be irrelevant??!! Lol you've got to be kidding me. Isn't this all what Syria is about right now. Christ! Just WOW

I'll say what I like,accept it or don't.

You have been badgering me to reply to this, via PM, Queen, which I hadn't done before because I thought our dispute had run its course and everyone else on the thread didn't need to be subjected to it further. But you are insisting, sigh.

I said Saudi A was irrelevant to stopping Muslim refugees from attempting to settle in the US because it IS irrelevant.

There aren't any refugees there. First THEY won't let any in, and second it is not a poor, failed state.
So it's citizens don't want to leave to go and live in the US in their droves. Might have something to do with the fact there is a bit of oil under the sand there.

Trump is not attempting to annoy the Muslim world (although he has) but to stop refugees immigrating. His supporters don't want any. They really don't want any. A bit like the Saudis, actually.

This is my last post on the matter Queen. Enough is enough.

Yes, but an awful lot of dice did fall in his favour.

I did and you didn't understand, so I'll break it down. I apologize if you think I'm being condescending. I'm not - I thought I was perfectly clear, you didn't understand, so I am simplifying:

Definition of a statist:



Social affairs: Building wall. Banning Muslims. All done through executive orders rather than congressional oversight.
Economic affairs:
Economic: Dakota Access Pipeline.

All done in his first week in office. All done through centralized executive orders. His actions fit that of a 'Statist' and thus he is one - One who has not subjected himself to congressional oversight as of yet. Whether you agree with the executive orders or not is moot to whether or not he is a statist. He is.

Trump has not changed one bit the amount of power the state has over society. If anything he is a strict Constitutionalist. His Few actions taken thus far do not warrant him being labeled or described differently than the 44 Presidents before him. Your hatred for him is commanding you common sense.

Ad hominem. You actually didn't disagree with anything I said, which is telling. It suggests you agree with what I said and simply don't have a way to argue it. I provided dictionary definition of the word along with examples. of his executive overreach and statist tendencies. You responded with... Whatever this was. My guess? You're using alternative facts.

You were attenpting to put a label on him which suggested he would wish to be a dictator and would just as soon do away with Congress, ( you won't say that but it's true), but that's just another example of the sort of unfounded criticism he's put up with since he announced his candidacy. Again, hs's done to suggest his Presidency or the manner in which he wants to bring his ideas to fruition are any different than any other President.

Strawman. Ad hominem.

You can say it's unfounded, but you're simply wrong. I explained it and explained the foundation upon which my decision lay and you either didn't understand it or you are simply lying about it being unfounded.

You still haven't made an argument. You've simply said the equivalent of "Nuh uh!", which suggests you know that I'm right.

How is it a right to own a gun?Why do Civilians need to own guns?Britain is an island so it's a lot harder to smuggle guns in.You will also notice that a lot more people were killed in the Paris attacks than in the last terror attack on British soil mainly due to guns.As for 9/11 I'm not entirely convinced that they didn't have foreign help,I would suspect Saudi Arabia of supporting the hijackers at least.It seems incredible that they could cause that many deaths without powerful help and it's not like the USA has never covered anything up.

Blaming the muslim for everything is easy, isn't it.

Muslims arent blamed for everything though are they. They are however blamed for the crimes they commit and the anti social behaviour that threy inflict on Europeans.

Look at sweden end of story

Blaming the muslim for everything is easy, isn't it.

Well if they go around committing terror attacks then yeah it is.

Well if they go around committing terror attacks then yeah it is.

how do you know that all of them r muslims, oh yh cause they have a beard, tht makes it easier for u to identify innit. What is happening to palestine, iraq, nothin. they don't matter, do they?