Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

President Trump's travel bans are objectionable, but can we please calm down? watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Palmyra)
    Again, this assumes that Trump is interested in logical opposition to his EO/policies in general, and there is absolutely no indication that this is the case (or ever will be). Also, those slogans are pretty long, so clearly not as practical as simple slogans such as "**** YOU", or "THIS IS NOT AMERICA" (etc).
    If Trump is genuinely interested in protecting the national security of the United States (which I think he is and maintain is the motive for the ban), then I think he would be open to corridors of advice and reason as to why this is a bad ban for national security. Right now he's not hearing that from most demonstrators...
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by Sycatonne23)
    What more would you have May say? She did say she disagreed with it, but how loud is she supposed to get? At the end of the day it's a domestic American decision which Trump's entitled to make, beyond highlighting how it's not going to be very effective in preventing terrorist infiltration, I don't see what else she can do.
    A quiet statement is certainly not loud enough. To condemn it in a speech (by which I mean use that word) and actually answer the question about whether it was the action of a 'leader of the free world' would have made me proud of my PM. But Mrs May seems to lack resolve (grammar schools come to mind) and that's dissapointing. Interestingly enough there appears to be disagreement about whether or not Trump was entitled to make that decision - though it's rather unclear it appears to apply to holder so dual citizenship and green cards too.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sycatonne23)
    If Trump is genuinely interested in protecting the national security of the United States (which I think he is and maintain is the motive for the ban), then I think he would be open to corridors of advice and reason as to why this is a bad ban for national security. Right now he's not hearing that from most demonstrators...
    You are frankly deluded (on both counts). If national security is the motive for the ban then he would have included the 4 countries actually responsible for the 9/11 attacks, if only he didn't have business interests in those 4 countries.

    And if you think that he would listen to protestors if only they were more "reasonable" then you are beyond help.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Palmyra)
    You are frankly deluded (on both counts). If national security is the motive for the ban then he would have included the 4 countries actually responsible for the 9/11 attacks, if only he didn't have business interests in those 4 countries.

    And if you think that he would listen to protestors if only they were more "reasonable" then you are beyond help.
    Let's be clear, those countries weren't "responsible" for the 9/11 attacks, the terrorists just came from those countries. Secondly, I'm arguing that the opposition isn't making the case as to why the ban is actually a bad thing, the hysteria is eclipsing the argument. I am not "deluded." I have watched candidate Trump since day one and this stuff about "extreme vetting" was part and parcel of his proposals to improve American national security and always in response to a perception of national security issues he had. Getting something wrong doesn't mean you're not trying to achieve the outcome.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jamestg)
    That's funny, clearly Trump doesn't recognise that with the firing of his attorney general.

    Also, don't be disingenuous - Obama placed travel restrictions NOT bans.

    But yeah, the petition thing over on our shores is ridiculous.
    I was more referring to the citizens right to protest, than Trump recognising dissent.

    Regarding the attorney general, that was certainly... interesting. The actual legal details are a bit murky, and I'm not going to pretend to be an expert on American immigration law so I can't really comment on whether or not it is constitutional. He was going to replace them anyway, but yeah it is concerning that he's willing to fire individuals who advise him about legal issues when they happen to disagree with the legality of his policy.

    Thanks for correcting me about the Obama thing btw, I read up on it after reading your comment on it and yeah it's not the same, my mistake. Even still, I'd argue that the president should have the power to restrict or ban the entry of nationals of a certain country, with sufficient justification (rightly or wrongly). I've done a bit of reading and statistic-hunting about America's immigration and asylum process over the last few days, and I think Trump's policy isn't necessary and not particularly beneficial, but I still think he should have the right to implement it if that's what he wishes and can justify.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by StephenWond3rboy)
    Either you dont know the extent of middle east or you can't locate Somalia on the map.
    Well obviously you don't know what your talking about because the TEMPORARY BAN isn't just from countries in the middle east

    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Ok so when I say the SAME THING AS OP I'm a racist nob.

    Ok cool. But seeing the OP get respect and ratings for thinking exactly what I think is all I need :yy:
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tomywomy)
    Well obviously you don't know what your talking about because the TEMPORARY BAN isn't just from countries in the middle east
    I made my point directly relating specifically to refugee crisis from middle-east. Not North Africa. You, retorted with something from Somalia?

    Then you post a link about how 20 refugees in 37 years went or tried to aid war in Syria? (I'll take your dubious source at face-value) Well, considering ~800+ overseas fighters sent from the West were British, we should be on top of the travel ban list. Don't you think?

    Now at some point, feel free to educate yourself on differences between open border migration policy and US/Canada's refugee policy. Rather than trying to see non-existent parallels. And please, not from Alex Jones media.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    what's wrong with using the more reliable independent media sources, as opposed to heavily bias left wing liberal american MSM that is basically running an on going smear campaign against trump, instead of just letting him do his job

    FYI the refugee crisis was caused after 9/11 when america declared 'war on terror' and bombed a bunch of countries which continued heavily under Obama, trump wouldn't be doing this ban if OBAMA wasn't such a crap president
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sycatonne23)
    What are you talking about? It's a travel ban not a death warrant. I'm not looking at this through "rose-tinted" spectacles, I'm simply making proportionate criticisms. This is a flawed policy which will not accomplish its stated aim of preventing terrorist infiltration, and I acknowledged that it's confusion causing. That said, the point can be made coherently as opposition groups always do with any other democratically elected government. The policy is wrong but stop making it out to be apocalyptic. Hysterical attitudes like yours is the biggest recruitment tool to Trump for gaining more and more supporters who would otherwise see this as illogical.
    I wasn't talking about the ban. I was talking about the atmospherr in general, you complete and utter pillock.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tomywomy)
    what's wrong with using the more reliable independent media sources, as opposed to heavily bias left wing liberal american MSM that is basically running an on going smear campaign against trump, instead of just letting him do his job

    FYI the refugee crisis was caused after 9/11 when america declared 'war on terror' and bombed a bunch of countries which continued heavily under Obama, trump wouldn't be doing this ban if OBAMA wasn't such a crap president
    Because they aren't more reliable. They are just as horse **** as any other source. The only difference is they attach platitudes (or worse - parade like objective source) that your mind likes over the other side.

    Independent media sources told you that Obama's bombing campaign caused refugees from all these countries?

    The Syrian refugee crisis is caused almost entirely by Assad with a very small chunk involving ISIS/US/Russian bombing campaigns, the Iraqi refugee crisis was largely caused by Bush/Blair and then by Obama's inaction when ISIS spread, the Afghan crisis is caused by the Taliban, the Iranian refugees (who are mostly non-Muslims) are caused by dissidence towards their government, the Somalians are caused by their own civil war, the Libyan refugee crisis is again caused by their own civil war and failure of EU and US to establish peace after their bombing campaign, Yemen crisis is caused almost entirely by Saudi Arabia and to a lesser extent by Iran, and Sudan is caused by their own civil war.

    Time to reconsider your reliable sources?
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: February 1, 2017
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.