The tech industry shows solidarity in the face of Donald Trump's immigration ban

[wiyosaya]

This writer should be let go. Plain as can be outright lie in the clickbait title.. There is no immigration ban. ****ing *****.

Good to hear a voice of reason noting as you this executive order is not an immigration ban at all or a religion discrimination or racial grievance issue at all .

As you probably know and for the benefit of maybe uniformed others here ,this common sense executive order on immigration control *legitimately for our national security is only a *legitimate temporary immigration and travel hold * from the very same * terrorist hotbed nations identified by the Obama administration and lawfully codified by congress.

EXACTLY *all this * has been done before by past presidents including Obama ,GW Bush and Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter but noting they were all democrats outside of GW Bush the was was little or no liberal, liberal media or political outrage then and GW Bush did it after the US world trade tower and Pentagon destruction anyway .

Unfortunately liberal revisionist history and the wholly corrupt liberal political establishment academia ,grievance industry liberal media , and uninformed bloggers,forum commenters and so on are all overlooking legitimate history and causation and are ignorant or deliberately ignorant

The Democrats and progressive liberals aka alt-left now liberals are desperate after losing the POTUS oval , soon the ACA taxpayer money grab, the EPA overreach ,climate fraud ,most of congress and national down ballot seats at the table and so on because they have *nothing but illegitimate wealth redistribution ,tax and spend policies , identity politics , division and strife , race hustling ,fringe issue distractions, decades of liberal policy failures and so on besides elitist globalism for thier wealthy liberal overseers funders and thier intended wealthy oligarchies .

Some education beyond the liberal media and revisionist liberal history can keep one from making a fool of themselves like the liberal fool media ,Illegitimately outraged liberals and democratic politicians ,academia, AND the protesters that are all getting played or funded by the alt-left ,the liberal establishments ,corporate globalists and grievance industries who stand to profit like the ACLU,and the race hustlers like Al Sharpton,Obama ,the Clintons ,some corporations , liberal tech oligarchs and media properties ,liberal bloggers,the democratic party and so on
,
,

Really, you should stop transcribing Rush Limbaugh's radio shows. He will hit you for copyright violation!

 

[Kunming]

First of all, not sure where you got the impression that I am somehow outraged? I certainly am not. You, on the other hand, judging by your personal insults, are clearly showing signs of anger, fake or otherwise.
I have never said you are a conservative, I don't know you or what your beliefs/political views are and frankly, nor do I care. Your charge about "liberal media" being consistently dishonest, however, is very much in line with conservative paranoia about "liberal media" destroying the country and undermining American values. That clearly is a part of a very troublesome tendency to apply false equivalence to 'liberal media" being just as dishonest and shady as "conservative media". Where in reality there is no white or black here but rather different shades of grey. Still, you simply cannot say that publications such as Washington Post, NY Times, Boston Globe are just as bad and dishonest as the toxic crapfest being daily spewed out by Faux News, which by far is the most popular conservative news source, unless you want to lie to yourself. There is no equivalence here. This narrative, is what elected Donald Trump. This false equivalence, turned smear campaign by republican propaganda machine that has gone for years trying to convince public that Clinton was Antichrist plotting to destroy America. And it certainly worked, in conjunction with holes in Clinton campaign, some Russian hacking and a friendly hand (or rather friendly mouth) of James Comey. Enough people were convinced that Clinton was just as bad as the guy who openly bragged about grabbing women by their vaginas against their will, never released his taxes, scammed people with his fraudulent Trump'versity, repeatedly screwed workers for money, can't put two words together, claimed that global warming is a Chinese hoax etc.. list can go on. Not enough to win him popular vote but enough to win him White House. And no, I don't have any illusions about Clinton being best that Democrats could come up with, I am nowhere close to being her fan, but it was quite clear that she was a far lesser of two evils. Seth Meyers has said it best, on how "equally" bad Trump and Clinton were:

Even the scholar you are so passionately referring to, Noam Chomski, has clearly agreed with this conclusion and encouraged public to "hold your nose an vote Democrat" :

That should've been your first reply.

Liberal media (american media in general as I also said) are and have destroyed the country in numerous ways. It's not paranoia. When news media don't adequately report on what matters, then lives are potentially put at risk. I sure can say Washington Post, NY Times and so on are just as bad. It's just a different brand of bad. They appear honest, when they're not. They fail to question basic american assumptions about the world and to expose actual wrongdoing by the US or they leave out crucial details.

For instance, they may report that a given bombing has taken place by a US drone, but not question the validity, whether morally or legally, of the bombing itself. Thus leading people to think it's justified to bomb foreign countries, so long as you're "killing terrorists" - when in reality, it's mostly civilians being killed. Then this is brushed off as an "accident", when it was willful. Or how the Us is threatening China in the South China Sea - but wherein it gets presented as if the Us is upholding "international law".

Hillary Clinton is an absolutely dreadful candidate. There's no question about this whatsoever. Given all the wars she stood for and all the corruption she continues to stand for, she actually does and has destroyed america. Destruction doesn't need to be falling buildings. It can be economic. Ask the many poor people in the us about that. I also don't think there's any evidence of Russian hacking. But if there was, it's quite fitting if they did intervene, in a karmic sense. Given US interventions in countless other countries' democratic processes.

I'm not supporting Trump either - but maybe the us got the president it deserved. But the extent to which Clinton could be less evil than Trump, is marginal at best. Non-existant at worse. Sure, it's bad to say or actually grab women by the *****, but it's even worse to make widows out of them, in many places in the Middle-East the US illegally invaded. Which Clinton supported. So she's only slightly better in terms of environmental politics and even there she wasn't serious. The us still doesn't care about the environment - it would rather invest in its military to fight made-up enemies.

I know what Chomsky says. But "holding your nose" and going Democrat is purely for the environmental thing and potentially WW3. The two biggest threats. But he also says people need to organise and create change themselves. But anyhow, in the end, neither side of the media attacks the real assumptions: is the us a force for good in the world? Should the us tell others what to do? Is what the us doing, really just terrorism, just like ISIS?

 

[bluto 2050]

re:
Legal Immigration in the USA was *very tightly controlled well past the mid 20th century* since at least the early 1900's .
.

Education is always good before presenting an unsupportable argument and ad hominem attack reply in a comments forum .blog or on social media ☺

 

[treetops]

“I'll tell you the whole history of it,” Giuliani responded eagerly. “So when [Trump] first announced it, he said, 'Muslim ban.' He called me up. He said, 'Put a commission together. Show me the right way to do it legally.' "

This goes against the constitution. This countries origins are rooted in religious freedom.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...sion-to-do-it-legally/?utm_term=.a11ed0b50c37

 

[bluto 2050]

False. I have discussed the long-term implications of existing U.S. immigration policy before. Search the forum if you are interested. Failure to maintain demographics and cultural homogeneity kills empires.

You aren't a critical thinker. You're a rhetorical trying to masquerade as one.



I've been told somewhere on my father's side there's Native American ancestry. Coincidentally, a group of people who was rather expediently bounced from the continent in two regions by immigrants with higher birth rates, better technology, and "fluid" religious beliefs.

I gotta tell ya, you aren't making a great case for open borders with that appeal.

Also, to quote my father, who has been detained by "allied" nations while fulfilling contracts those very nations requested, "So what? This happens all the time in other countries. They just don't report it."

Sympathy card...rejected.

I'm wholly with davislane1 here,

For the opposition POV here , legitimate Education and a knowledge beyond liberal revisionist history and propaganda is always good before presenting a foolish unsupportable argument and or an unwarranted ad hominum attack ☺

Legal Immigration in the USA was wisely *very tightly controlled well past the mid 20th century* since at least the early 1900's .
.

The liberal media properties , liberal grievance industry's , the tech industry, publicity hound celebrities ,globalists and so on all stand to profit from this recent *manufactured immigration outrage over Presidents trumps *lawful temporary executive immigration /travel restrictions* from countries the Obama administration and congress lawfully codified as terrorist hotbed nations

The hypocritical left , liberal media and the desperate democratic politicians ride all thier manufactured outrage waves for political capital and political funding from the uninformed liberal voting blocs ,liberal corporate and liberal oligarchies while they have all lost the liberal elected political influence here to 1922 levels while the liberal media have wholly become discredited political activists .

The liberal establishment ,academia ,democratic politicians and bureaucrats and the globalists have wholly failed and deceived the majority of liberals ,the globe and the USA for decades and brought on BREXIT , the USA and globes terrible state of affairs, president Trump for badly needed disruption , and a legacy of ruin at biblical scale now including climate fraud for political influence ,globalism and monetary gain ,

e,g., Since President Tumps lawful immigration/travel restrictions by POTUS executive privilege the ACLU in a few days just received more than the prior year's operating income from donations and liberal funding because of this broadly marketed manufactured outrage .

.******* Noting that going back to President Jimmy Carter this lawful executive privilege temporary immigration /travel restriction action for our national security by President Trump is nothing new aside from the manufactured outrage.

 

[cliffordcooley]

This goes against the constitution. This countries origins are rooted in religious freedom.

Yes, religious freedom, not terror. It seems we are now having to draw a line in the sand to separate the two.

 

[EClyde]

For the most part the "tech industry" are a bunch of tight pants pantywaists that lack imagination. They should be in the Tech Fad article. I am willing to bet my millions that they don't know what the "immigration ban" is really about. Why do we want people from impoverished countries with no skills to suck off of Sam's withered teat?
Answer. For their vote.

 

[bluto 2050]

Obviously the writer may need a legitimate education about all this, real history ,the liberals and alt-left .

OTOH ,Good to hear a voice of reason noting as you this executive order is not an immigration ban at all or a religion discrimination or racial grievance issue at all .

As you probably know and for the benefit of maybe uniformed others here ,this common sense executive order on immigration control *legitimately for our national security is only a *legitimate temporary immigration and travel hold * from the very same * terrorist hotbed nations identified by the Obama administration and lawfully codified by congress.

EXACTLY *all this * has been done before by past presidents including Obama ,GW Bush and Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter but noting they were all democrats outside of GW Bush the was was little or no liberal, liberal media or political outrage then and GW Bush did it after the US world trade tower and Pentagon destruction anyway .

Unfortunately liberal revisionist history and the wholly corrupt liberal political establishment academia ,grievance industry liberal media , and uninformed bloggers,forum commenters and so on are all overlooking legitimate history and causation and are ignorant or deliberately ignorant
The ACLU is making a killing from this one liberally manufactured outrage to the tune of more money in a few days than all of last year

 

[ekg84]

That should've been your first reply.

Liberal media (american media in general as I also said) are and have destroyed the country in numerous ways. It's not paranoia. When news media don't adequately report on what matters, then lives are potentially put at risk. I sure can say Washington Post, NY Times and so on are just as bad. It's just a different brand of bad. They appear honest, when they're not. They fail to question basic american assumptions about the world and to expose actual wrongdoing by the US or they leave out crucial details.

For instance, they may report that a given bombing has taken place by a US drone, but not question the validity, whether morally or legally, of the bombing itself. Thus leading people to think it's justified to bomb foreign countries, so long as you're "killing terrorists" - when in reality, it's mostly civilians being killed. Then this is brushed off as an "accident", when it was willful. Or how the Us is threatening China in the South China Sea - but wherein it gets presented as if the Us is upholding "international law".

Hillary Clinton is an absolutely dreadful candidate. There's no question about this whatsoever. Given all the wars she stood for and all the corruption she continues to stand for, she actually does and has destroyed america. Destruction doesn't need to be falling buildings. It can be economic. Ask the many poor people in the us about that. I also don't think there's any evidence of Russian hacking. But if there was, it's quite fitting if they did intervene, in a karmic sense. Given US interventions in countless other countries' democratic processes.

I'm not supporting Trump either - but maybe the us got the president it deserved. But the extent to which Clinton could be less evil than Trump, is marginal at best. Non-existant at worse. Sure, it's bad to say or actually grab women by the *****, but it's even worse to make widows out of them, in many places in the Middle-East the US illegally invaded. Which Clinton supported. So she's only slightly better in terms of environmental politics and even there she wasn't serious. The us still doesn't care about the environment - it would rather invest in its military to fight made-up enemies.

I know what Chomsky says. But "holding your nose" and going Democrat is purely for the environmental thing and potentially WW3. The two biggest threats. But he also says people need to organise and create change themselves. But anyhow, in the end, neither side of the media attacks the real assumptions: is the us a force for good in the world? Should the us tell others what to do? Is what the us doing, really just terrorism, just like ISIS?

Well, I will politely disagree. While so called "liberal media" certainly does deserve some criticism on underreporting some stories/issues there is simply no comparison to out right lying and "Alternative facts" that you hear from Faux News and friends. There is plenty of honest, responsible, investigative journalism out there done by these so called "liberal media" organizations that often gets overlooked by wide audience, let alone conservatives.

I will agree that Clinton certainly was a flawed candidate but here is where, in my opinion, you clearly contradict yourself. You claim that she was only marginally better if at all, yet you admit that she clearly had better positions on preventing two biggest threats, one being a potential WW3 and the other being environmental policy. So I don't quite understand how is that a marginal difference, when so much is at stake? You are talking about potential WW3 here and global climate crisis that can very well have catastrophic consequences. Environmental policy alone should have been enough to make choice crystal clear.

And then you compare US foreign policy to ISIS which is quite of a comparison. I mean sure, there were wars that clearly should have not been fought and regime changes that should not have occurred but there were genocides prevented and nations rebuilt, so that's just another false equivalence.

 

[Kunming]

Well, I will politely disagree. While so called "liberal media" certainly does deserve some criticism on underreporting some stories/issues there is simply no comparison to out right lying and "Alternative facts" that you hear from Faux News and friends. There is plenty of honest, responsible, investigative journalism out there done by these so called "liberal media" organizations that often gets overlooked by wide audience, let alone conservatives.

I will agree that Clinton certainly was a flawed candidate but here is where, in my opinion, you clearly contradict yourself. You claim that she was only marginally better if at all, yet you admit that she clearly had better positions on preventing two biggest threats, one being a potential WW3 and the other being environmental policy. So I don't quite understand how is that a marginal difference, when so much is at stake? You are talking about potential WW3 here and global climate crisis that can very well have catastrophic consequences. Environmental policy alone should have been enough to make choice crystal clear.

And then you compare US foreign policy to ISIS which is quite of a comparison. I mean sure, there were wars that clearly should have not been fought and regime changes that should not have occurred but there were genocides prevented and nations rebuilt, so that's just another false equivalence.

We can agree Fox is terrible.

The thing is, Hillary is a war-hawk. So on the war front she may or may not be better. If Trump goes isolationist, then he's definitely better. While Hillary would've also kept the status quo, which is both good and bad in different contexts. It's good in the case of China and its 1 China policy for example, while it's bad in the way that Russia & China are demonized and antagonized; with the media then providing the necessary [bad] excuses for why nations like them should be treated with hostility and suspicion. As for the climate, she's not a climate change denier, which makes her "better", but it's so small, since she's in bed with the energy lobby, who want things like fracking. Hence I say *marginal*. Sorry for the confusion.
Not to mention her predecessor Obama has presided over the biggest nuclear weapons spending since WW2, despite what he said about de-nuclearisation.

Your last paragraph screams american exceptionalism. If what ISIS does is terrorism, then what the US does is also terrorism. And no, the US did not help. It destroyed things, committed mass-murder, broke several international laws in doing so, helped created ISIS and groups like it and then denied it ever did anything wrong, basically. It's just like Germany's illegal invasion of Poland which started WW2. It's a massive crime. I think you're being too soft on the US when you say "shouldn't have been fought and regime changes that should not..." It's not a mistake. It wasn't well-intentioned. It was a crime and probably the crime of the century and it's nation-state terrorism. For these reasons, the Us is actually worse than ISIS, since they have nukes and have military bases across the whole planet. So in a sense you're right about the false equivalence: nothing can be compared to the terrorism of the US.

 

[bluto 2050]

“I'll tell you the whole history of it,” Giuliani responded eagerly. “So when [Trump] first announced it, he said, 'Muslim ban.' He called me up. He said, 'Put a commission together. Show me the right way to do it legally.' "

This goes against the constitution. This countries origins are rooted in religious freedom.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...sion-to-do-it-legally/?utm_term=.a11ed0b50c37

"This countries origins are rooted in religious freedom."

^^^^^LOL .......Parochial minded simplistic revisionist history

Real History :

European colonization of the Americas began as early as the 10th–11th century with the Vikings .

Extensive European colonization allegedly began in ~1492, when a Spanish expedition headed by Christopher Columbus sailed west to find a new trade route to the but instead landed in the " New World " that begat the colonial Americas , the latin American Spanish colonies , Spanish ,British and French North American colonization and so on and so on . .

Our country's 18th century British colonial parting declaration of independence origins were mostly from disputed British monarchy rule and British colonial tax disputes with the English monarchy's and moreover specific guarantees of personal freedoms and rights including *individual property rights and limitations on the government's power.

The USC religious freedom articles and part of the constitutional First amendment Bill of rights construct were just parts of the USC mandates but longstanding revisionist history may attach much more significance to religion than it really was to wit:

England's first north American colony Jamestown in late in 1606was actually settled by English entrepreneurs with a charter from the London Company under a business construct that included investors of the Virginia Company of London business plan not religion and so on ......

“I'll tell you the whole history of it,”
LOL....The Arab middle east country's modern origins and borders originated from warring Arab Sunni and Shiite factions and Arab tribes and the French-Anglo colonialism Sykes-Picot agreement borders in the early 20th century that is in no small part the reason they are still at war:

• Sunni Muslims include 84%–90% of all Muslim
• Shiite Muslims comprise 10%–16% of all Muslims. ..

- Some of the above historical construct is abridged or quoted in part or whole from Wikipedia articles for expedience but I knew the constructs long ago anyway - ☺

“I'll tell you the whole history of it,”
LOL ...The above consultation with Giuliani was normally prudent and lawful . Trump doesn't hold a JS degree and US government and maybe international professional legal experience like Giuliani .

"Unconstitutional "
LOL.....Patently false read the USC and some legitimate history ,not the WA PO propaganda ☺

Legal Immigration in the USA was *very tightly controlled well past the mid 20th century* since at least the early 1900's

This lawful executive action by President Trump has nothing to do with religion or racism but moreover national security and this exact executive privilege and same actions for the same construct lawfully go back to Jimmy Carter invoked by at least 3 administrations prior to now .

LOL....The only thing new here is the liberally manufactured outrage

The WA PO writers liberal broadcasters , politicians and so on clear lack of USC knowledge or deliberate ignorance is not surprising given the WA PO and liberal media are nothing beyond liberal political activist's with deliberately ignorant or poorly educated writers and contributors and so on and the rest of liberal establishment and the liberal politicians tow the same slavic lines for political and monetary gain and thier globalist elite benefactors .

Perhaps many here and around the nation should study the USC and some legitimate history befiore they continue to make abject fool's of themselves

 

[bluto 2050]

Typical response of a racist. I'm sorry but all you said is just your own delusion based on you reading some white supremacist blogs or something similarly stupid to that.
FYI America lives and breaths on immigration. Immigration is how the country functions. Calling people "open border types" is the mark of a kid who doesn't know his own country's history.

TL;DR Trump just made the his first big mistake and he will pay for it one way or another. The country hicks who voted for him are already regretting their decision.

I disagree I 'm thinking you have have not spent much or any time abroad and you completely lack a legitimate worldly perspective others and myself may have about all this because of that and other legitimate experiences one cant possibly get in a classroom or cubicle or office or domestic service job and so on or from the liberal media propaganda .

Again Legal Immigration in the USA was *very tightly controlled well past the mid 20th century* since at least the early 1900's

This USC lawful executive action by President Trump has nothing to do with religion or racism but moreover national security and this exact executive privilege and same actions for the same national security construct lawfully go back to Jimmy Carter invoked by at least 3 administration's priorly under various specific constructs yet all under the same lawful USC executive privilege subject to the same congressional and judicial oversight as as now .

LOL....The only thing new here is the liberally manufactured outrage outside the usual liberal media propaganda and liberal political vote pandering ☺


Folks should study the USC and something beyond revisionist history and liberal propaganda before they make patently false statements and or unjustified ad hominem attacks may put them in an unfavorable position

 

[Silvernine]

The Iraqi ban issue from Obama actually was about the Special Immigrant Visas (SIV), given to all those who had worked with the U.S. Armed Forces as either translators or interpreters. During sometime 2011, because of an issue where U.S. soldiers were attacked in Iraq and the fear of those who are coming into the U.S. posing as refugees, the Obama administration wanted to re-examine those who were given the Special Immigrant Visas as well as refugees who wanted to come into the U.S. and therefore that six month "ban" was imposed. All other visas were still able to get into the U.S. as normal. Since it's mainly about the SIV, people from Afghan were also affected.

Apparently the seven countries in Trump's version did come from Obama's own Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act which he recently signed back in 2015. However it basically excludes these seven countries from wavering the Visa requirements unlike 38 other countries who may do so if they are to visit the U.S. for less than 90 days. Basically those 38 countries, listed here at https://travel.state.gov/content/visas/en/visit/visa-waiver-program.html may visit the U.S. without requiring a Visa as long as they are to visit for less than 90 days. The seven countries, Iraq, Iran, Sudan, Syria, Yemen, Libya, and Somalia, however must have a Visa to visit the U.S. even if they are visiting for less than 90 days.

Therefore I don't think it's the same at all.

 

[bluto 2050]

The Iraqi ban issue from Obama actually was about the Special Immigrant Visas (SIV), given to all those who had worked with the U.S. Armed Forces as either translators or interpreters. During sometime 2011, because of an issue where U.S. soldiers were attacked in Iraq and the fear of those who are coming into the U.S. posing as refugees, the Obama administration wanted to re-examine those who were given the Special Immigrant Visas as well as refugees who wanted to come into the U.S. and therefore that six month "ban" was imposed. All other visas were still able to get into the U.S. as normal. Since it's mainly about the SIV, people from Afghan were also affected.

Apparently the seven countries in Trump's version did come from Obama's own Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act which he recently signed back in 2015. However it basically excludes these seven countries from wavering the Visa requirements unlike 38 other countries who may do so if they are to visit the U.S. for less than 90 days. Basically those 38 countries, listed here at https://travel.state.gov/content/visas/en/visit/visa-waiver-program.html, may visit the U.S. without requiring a Visa as long as they are to visit for less than 90 days. The seven countries, Iraq, Iran, Sudan, Syria, Yemen, Libya, and Somalia, however must have a Visa to visit the U.S. even if they are visiting for less than 90 days.

Therefore I don't think it's the same at all.

Noting that going back to President Jimmy Carter and at least 3-4 subsequent POTUS this lawful executive privilege and temporary immigration /travel restriction action (not a muslim ban at all ) for our national security by President Trump from nations Obama DHS identified as terrorists hotbeds lawfully codified by congress is nothing new aside from the manufactured liberal outrage,fake liberal media reporting and political activism , wholly illegitimate protests and democratic political vote pandering .

Note also foreign nationals abroad documented or not do not have constitutional protections or guarantees to be able to enter USA visa ,visa waiver or not ☺

 

[davislane1]

So in other words, we should maintain purity?

Dishonesty noted.

And in whose history books are there cases that prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that diversity was the downfall of the civilization?

All of them. Every war ever fought has been between fundamentally different populations that find themselves competing too closely for the same resources. Putting them all into a pot and giving it a stir doesn't magically erase those conflicts. It doesn't erase who people are.

Take a good look at this forum and who many of us voted for and the things we support. Not speculation; what's actually been posted.

You speak of diversity like you understand human nature and science, and you look down upon anyone who contradicts you, but you can't even grasp the obvious consequences of the diversity you extol as they unfold before your eyes. You can't even see it when you look at a map.

We are fighting for the representation of our interests. This is why Donald Trump sits in the White House and not Hillary Clinton. It's why none of us care about how anybody feels about the ban, how anybody feels about the wall, or how raciss and phobic you think we are. It's our interests vs their interests and your ilk seems to believe that either side of that conflict is willing to go quietly into the night, because feelings.

Each faction in this conflict believes in its cause with the same conviction that you have for your progressive ideals. The difference is that, now, we're winning.

And we aren't going to stop.

 

[Axle Grease]

Worse, these actions will make America less safe (through hatred and loss of allies) rather than more safe

Yeah. Because letting people in from terrorist hotbeds makes us safer.

Missing from this article is that the nations affected by the ban came from Obama. It's his list. He also did the same to Iraqis several years ago and I don't recall any tech websites (or firms) screaming and yelling about that.

Actually, it's not only missing from this article. Mainstream media has its nose deep in the Democratic Party crack, so you'll be hard pressed to find the point about the list being Obama's in ANY mainstream media publication.

 

[wiyosaya]

First of all, not sure where you got the impression that I am somehow outraged? I certainly am not. You, on the other hand, judging by your personal insults, are clearly showing signs of anger, fake or otherwise.
I have never said you are a conservative, I don't know you or what your beliefs/political views are and frankly, nor do I care. Your charge about "liberal media" being consistently dishonest, however, is very much in line with conservative paranoia about "liberal media" destroying the country and undermining American values. That clearly is a part of a very troublesome tendency to apply false equivalence to 'liberal media" being just as dishonest and shady as "conservative media". Where in reality there is no white or black here but rather different shades of grey. Still, you simply cannot say that publications such as Washington Post, NY Times, Boston Globe are just as bad and dishonest as the toxic crapfest being daily spewed out by Faux News, which by far is the most popular conservative news source, unless you want to lie to yourself. There is no equivalence here. This narrative, is what elected Donald Trump. This false equivalence, turned smear campaign by republican propaganda machine that has gone for years trying to convince public that Clinton was Antichrist plotting to destroy America. And it certainly worked, in conjunction with holes in Clinton campaign, some Russian hacking and a friendly hand (or rather friendly mouth) of James Comey. Enough people were convinced that Clinton was just as bad as the guy who openly bragged about grabbing women by their vaginas against their will, never released his taxes, scammed people with his fraudulent Trump'versity, repeatedly screwed workers for money, can't put two words together, claimed that global warming is a Chinese hoax etc.. list can go on. Not enough to win him popular vote but enough to win him White House. And no, I don't have any illusions about Clinton being best that Democrats could come up with, I am nowhere close to being her fan, but it was quite clear that she was a far lesser of two evils. Seth Meyers has said it best, on how "equally" bad Trump and Clinton were:

Even the scholar you are so passionately referring to, Noam Chomski, has clearly agreed with this conclusion and encouraged public to "hold your nose an vote Democrat" :

That should've been your first reply.

Liberal media (american media in general as I also said) are and have destroyed the country in numerous ways. It's not paranoia. When news media don't adequately report on what matters, then lives are potentially put at risk. I sure can say Washington Post, NY Times and so on are just as bad. It's just a different brand of bad. They appear honest, when they're not. They fail to question basic american assumptions about the world and to expose actual wrongdoing by the US or they leave out crucial details.

For instance, they may report that a given bombing has taken place by a US drone, but not question the validity, whether morally or legally, of the bombing itself. Thus leading people to think it's justified to bomb foreign countries, so long as you're "killing terrorists" - when in reality, it's mostly civilians being killed. Then this is brushed off as an "accident", when it was willful. Or how the Us is threatening China in the South China Sea - but wherein it gets presented as if the Us is upholding "international law".

Hillary Clinton is an absolutely dreadful candidate. There's no question about this whatsoever. Given all the wars she stood for and all the corruption she continues to stand for, she actually does and has destroyed america. Destruction doesn't need to be falling buildings. It can be economic. Ask the many poor people in the us about that. I also don't think there's any evidence of Russian hacking. But if there was, it's quite fitting if they did intervene, in a karmic sense. Given US interventions in countless other countries' democratic processes.

I'm not supporting Trump either - but maybe the us got the president it deserved. But the extent to which Clinton could be less evil than Trump, is marginal at best. Non-existant at worse. Sure, it's bad to say or actually grab women by the *****, but it's even worse to make widows out of them, in many places in the Middle-East the US illegally invaded. Which Clinton supported. So she's only slightly better in terms of environmental politics and even there she wasn't serious. The us still doesn't care about the environment - it would rather invest in its military to fight made-up enemies.

I know what Chomsky says. But "holding your nose" and going Democrat is purely for the environmental thing and potentially WW3. The two biggest threats. But he also says people need to organise and create change themselves. But anyhow, in the end, neither side of the media attacks the real assumptions: is the us a force for good in the world? Should the us tell others what to do? Is what the us doing, really just terrorism, just like ISIS?

I get you are trying to maintain indifference, but it was the G. W. Bush administration that fabricated evidence of WMD in Iraq that then lead to the illegal destruction of Saddam Hussein's regime. W, and others from his administration, are considered war criminals in some nations and would be arrested and charged with war crimes if they were to set foot in those nations.

W's administration did a very effective job of pulling the wool over the eyes of many, many people. If W's administration had not done this, the world would definitely be in a different place. Clinton did support this war, but I don't see that it is entirely her responsibility. We should expect that presidents in the US will be honorable people, and there are times when they have sorely let us down. This was one of those times when the US was deceived by an administration with an agenda. The nation was also crazed at that point having been targeted by terrorists. This is no excuse for what happened; however, I do think Obama should have prosecuted W and **** Chaney for treason. Had he, though, W and Cheney would have lied their asses off just like they did when they convinced the world that Iraq had WMD. This is one story where the US media and congressional investigations got to the truth, but there were no consequences to pay. Thus, the US is where it is now, and liars are emboldened to lie to the population. I think that saying from Star Trek the Original Series is applicable:

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

 

[captaincranky]

Typical response of a racist. I'm sorry but all you said is just your own delusion based on you reading some white supremacist blogs or something similarly stupid to that.
FYI America lives and breaths on immigration. Immigration is how the country functions. Calling people "open border types" is the mark of a kid who doesn't know his own country's history..

@Puiu, Please stop about this crap about how we don't know our own country's history. When we actually were "a country of immigrants", we were 13 colonies that didn't extent too much more than 100 miles inland from the Atlantic ocean. Manhattan Island cost the earliest settlers something on the order of $26.00 worth of beads and trinkets. Not to mention the earliest "immigrants" were primarily British citizens, fleeing King George's oppression. The entire western section of the country was almost completely empty. Look up "Lewis & Clark".

Different times breed situations and responses to different threats. Not to mention real estate in Manhattan today is primarily vertical because of space considerations, and if you want to rent, not buy, commercial space in therein, it will cost $26.00 a square foot, per month, to do so.

All the political wizards at this site seem to run their mouths about "how America was founded by immigrants, and then want to rewrite our Constitution for us, to do away with the electoral college. So what is it, were we right back then and wrong now, or vice-verso? Not that your opinion matters, since most of you from outside this country seem to feel we're a "flawed democracy", and becoming "isolationist" anyway. So tell me, how much of this slop that ISIS is driving out of Syria going to wind up settling in Romania? That is unless the Russians come and take Romania back before they get there.

I practically can't see any reason why the US is supposed to be the "Comfort Inn", to the world's refugees. Both Russia and China have plenty of free land, after all, Russia encompasses no less than 12 (!!) time zones. Maybe they should take in their "fair share" of people, whom both they, and the Assad regime, both have a hand in driving out of Syria. We don't have tractor trailers running though scores of pedestrians, like they do in Europe, and yet we're the ones who are "doing it wrong".

Trump has the right idea. We're done with all this "nation building" bullsh!t. Every country which we've either invaded, or rendered military assistance to, has wound up in a civil war. They people in the Middle East don't seem to able to make it, without an iron fisted dictator or oil sheik to keep them under control. After all, without us infidel Christians invading "The Holy Land" to solidify the faith, they start making war with one another of the (allegedly) same religion. "Death to the Suni's" say the Shites. "Death to the Shites". Hey, belief in Jesus has absolutely nothing to do with that stupidity.

In the meantime, stop trying to channel and cobble together "our forefather's thoughts", to come up with a yet another convenient way to justify your to hate for the US.

We all know, you think you could run our country better than Trump or anyone else. Well, you and every fool in the USA out on the picket lines because their candidate didn't win our election.

You claim you don't like the political context of many of the recent threads, and I have a suggestion for you to be able to deal with it.

Don't post to these threads. And while you're at it, bugger off, and go argue all night and part of tomorrow with someone about "which smart phone is the best". How does that sound to you? You're delusional enough to think that would be doing, "something important with your life".

 

[Edito]

You do realise that what you said is childish right? All Trump did is create more hatred. THE END

The more the left and it's puppet masters hate, the better. The more they hate and the more violent they become, the more people will recognize them for what they are. And the more that happens, the more people will support these policies to protect them from the barbarians.

You open borders types have no idea the type of deep seeded hatred and resentment you're breeding by flooding western countries with foreigners and granting them preference as protected populations.

In fact, there was a migrant who recently drowned in Venice...to the cheers and jeers of observers. At some point, someone told the guy to "go back to Africa." Now, nobody was obligated to jump in and save him. But the fact that they were amused by the poor fellow's misfortune should tell you something.

What's going on in this country and Europe is a war between globalists, nationalists, and non-Europeans brought about by 60 years of multiculturalism and progressivism's cancerous effects on Western identity and culture. It isn't going to end peacefully.

He arbitrarily decided that the America isn't America anymore but North Korea.

Further responses will be ignored. You're too short for the ride.

I think the Executive Order could have been significantly improved with some input from staff.

Most of this stuff was likely planned out months ago. This is an opening salvo intended to lead up to a more thorough set of policies.

What I can tell you is that story repeats it self, once Africa Welcomed all kinds of foreigners and now they are banning everyone, that will come with a price and I don't know if the westerns will be able to pay the price...

I just hope god helps us all because everything in this world is relevant and has a purpose...

 

[Uncle Al]

India will be hit... Since when... I thought every single article from trumps administration listed war torn places like Iraq, Syria... your telling me India is war torn? Unless I'm missing a BIG part of the puzzle its just war torn place not india or pakistan or south korea

That's a valid point but both India & Pakistan have both had their dark issues that have had them under US scrutiny for a long time.. What is more interesting to me is that none of the countries from which so much of this trouble originates from were on the list, especially the EU. If he's going after terrorists, then why doesn't he go after them where they originate? And if we are talking terrorists, hackers that shut down systems and invade others are certainly part of the problem so Russia and China should be at the top of the list. All in all, when you look at what he's doing, I will be surprised if the talk of impeachment isn't on everyone's radar before it's all over.

 

[psycros]

India will be hit... Since when... I thought every single article from trumps administration listed war torn places like Iraq, Syria... your telling me India is war torn? Unless I'm missing a BIG part of the puzzle its just war torn place not india or pakistan or south korea

That's a valid point but both India & Pakistan have both had their dark issues that have had them under US scrutiny for a long time.. What is more interesting to me is that none of the countries from which so much of this trouble originates from were on the list, especially the EU. If he's going after terrorists, then why doesn't he go after them where they originate? And if we are talking terrorists, hackers that shut down systems and invade others are certainly part of the problem so Russia and China should be at the top of the list. All in all, when you look at what he's doing, I will be surprised if the talk of impeachment isn't on everyone's radar before it's all over.

For your sake I really hope you were drunk when you posted this.

 

[Kunming]

I get you are trying to maintain indifference, but it was the G. W. Bush administration that fabricated evidence of WMD in Iraq that then lead to the illegal destruction of Saddam Hussein's regime. W, and others from his administration, are considered war criminals in some nations and would be arrested and charged with war crimes if they were to set foot in those nations.

W's administration did a very effective job of pulling the wool over the eyes of many, many people. If W's administration had not done this, the world would definitely be in a different place. Clinton did support this war, but I don't see that it is entirely her responsibility. We should expect that presidents in the US will be honorable people, and there are times when they have sorely let us down. This was one of those times when the US was deceived by an administration with an agenda. The nation was also crazed at that point having been targeted by terrorists. This is no excuse for what happened; however, I do think Obama should have prosecuted W and **** Chaney for treason. Had he, though, W and Cheney would have lied their asses off just like they did when they convinced the world that Iraq had WMD. This is one story where the US media and congressional investigations got to the truth, but there were no consequences to pay. Thus, the US is where it is now, and liars are emboldened to lie to the population. I think that saying from Star Trek the Original Series is applicable:

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

If you judge presidents by the Nuremburg trial standards that the Nazis had to undergo after WW2, then all US presidents are war criminals by those standards - including Obama. It's not a particular administration. It's this toxic mindset that it's okay to invade other countries, interfere in their business and act like you own the place. 9/11 was bad, but it's only a tiny fraction of what "we do to them" if you get me.

 

[Kunming]

@Puiu, Please stop about this crap about how we don't know our own country's history. When we actually were "a country of immigrants", we were 13 colonies that didn't extent too much more than 100 miles inland from the Atlantic ocean. Manhattan Island cost the earliest settlers something on the order of $26.00 worth of beads and trinkets. Not to mention the earliest "immigrants" were primarily British citizens, fleeing King George's oppression. The entire western section of the country was almost completely empty. Look up "Lewis & Clark".

Different times breed situations and responses to different threats. Not to mention real estate in Manhattan today is primarily vertical because of space considerations, and if you want to rent, not buy, commercial space in therein, it will cost $26.00 a square foot, per month, to do so.

All the political wizards at this site seem to run their mouths about "how America was founded by immigrants, and then want to rewrite our Constitution for us, to do away with the electoral college. So what is it, were we right back then and wrong now, or vice-verso? Not that your opinion matters, since most of you from outside this country seem to feel we're a "flawed democracy", and becoming "isolationist" anyway. So tell me, how much of this slop that ISIS is driving out of Syria going to wind up settling in Romania? That is unless the Russians come and take Romania back before they get there.

I practically can't see any reason why the US is supposed to be the "Comfort Inn", to the world's refugees. Both Russia and China have plenty of free land, after all, Russia encompasses no less than 12 (!!) time zones. Maybe that should take in their "fair share", of people whom both they, and the Assad regime, both have a hand in driving out of Syria. We don't have tractor trailers running though scores of pedestrians, like they do in Europe, and yet we're the ones who are "doing it wrong".

Trump has the right idea. We're done with all this "nation building" bullsh!t. Every country which we've either invaded, or rendered military assistance to, has wound up in a civil war. They people in the Middle East don't seem to able to make it, without an iron fisted dictator or oil sheik to keep them under control. After all, without us infidel Christians invading "The Holy Land" to solidify the faith, they start making war with one another of the (allegedly) same religion. "Death to the Suni's" say the Shites. "Death to the Shites". Hey, belief in Jesus has absolutely nothing to do with that stupidity.

In the meantime, stop trying to channel and cobble together "our forefather's thoughts", to come up with a yet another convenient way to justify your to hate for the US.

We all know, eou think you could run our country better than Trump or anyone else. Well, you an every fool in the USD out on the pickets lines because their candidate didn't win our election.

You claim you don't like the political context of many of the recent threads, and I have a suggestion for you to be able to deal with it.

Don't post to these threads. And while you're at it, bugger off, and go argue all night and part of tomorrow with someone about "which smart phone is the best". How does that sound to you? You're delusional enough to think that would be doing, "something important with your life".

That's a common distortion. Helped along by a compliant media who never question.

- Why should Russia take refugees from anywhere except Syria and maaybe Afghanistan? Why should China? They didn't even do anything to create the problem. Germany took over a million refugees. While the Us has taken none by comparison.

- Nation building wouldn't be necessary if they weren't illegally destroyed in the first place.

- There's no split between sunni & shia's. It was the US who caused this, by mass-murdering people. It was common in Iraq for instance, to cross-marry, between Sunnis and Shias. Again, this is a US created problem. Syria was a very multicultural society too. That has been destroyed.

- If the US didn't support Israel as dogmatically as it does, much of the problems in that area would be gone. But Israel knows it can do whatever it wants, including murdering Palestinians and building illegal settlements, as long as the US supports it.

So yes, the US does deserve all the hate it gets. Because if one hates terrorists, one should hate US terrorism too.

 

[Puiu]

@Puiu, Please stop about this crap about how we don't know our own country's history. When we actually were "a country of immigrants", we were 13 colonies that didn't extent too much more than 100 miles inland from the Atlantic ocean. Manhattan Island cost the earliest settlers something on the order of $26.00 worth of beads and trinkets. Not to mention the earliest "immigrants" were primarily British citizens, fleeing King George's oppression. The entire western section of the country was almost completely empty. Look up "Lewis & Clark".

Different times breed situations and responses to different threats. Not to mention real estate in Manhattan today is primarily vertical because of space considerations, and if you want to rent, not buy, commercial space in therein, it will cost $26.00 a square foot, per month, to do so.

All the political wizards at this site seem to run their mouths about "how America was founded by immigrants, and then want to rewrite our Constitution for us, to do away with the electoral college. So what is it, were we right back then and wrong now, or vice-verso? Not that your opinion matters, since most of you from outside this country seem to feel we're a "flawed democracy", and becoming "isolationist" anyway. So tell me, how much of this slop that ISIS is driving out of Syria going to wind up settling in Romania? That is unless the Russians come and take Romania back before they get there.

I practically can't see any reason why the US is supposed to be the "Comfort Inn", to the world's refugees. Both Russia and China have plenty of free land, after all, Russia encompasses no less than 12 (!!) time zones. Maybe that should take in their "fair share", of people whom both they, and the Assad regime, both have a hand in driving out of Syria. We don't have tractor trailers running though scores of pedestrians, like they do in Europe, and yet we're the ones who are "doing it wrong".

Trump has the right idea. We're done with all this "nation building" bullsh!t. Every country which we've either invaded, or rendered military assistance to, has wound up in a civil war. They people in the Middle East don't seem to able to make it, without an iron fisted dictator or oil sheik to keep them under control. After all, without us infidel Christians invading "The Holy Land" to solidify the faith, they start making war with one another of the (allegedly) same religion. "Death to the Suni's" say the Shites. "Death to the Shites". Hey, belief in Jesus has absolutely nothing to do with that stupidity.

In the meantime, stop trying to channel and cobble together "our forefather's thoughts", to come up with a yet another convenient way to justify your to hate for the US.

We all know, eou think you could run our country better than Trump or anyone else. Well, you an every fool in the USD out on the pickets lines because their candidate didn't win our election.

You claim you don't like the political context of many of the recent threads, and I have a suggestion for you to be able to deal with it.

Don't post to these threads. And while you're at it, bugger off, and go argue all night and part of tomorrow with someone about "which smart phone is the best". How does that sound to you? You're delusional enough to think that would be doing, "something important with your life".

America is and will always be a country of immigrants. Just because you don't like it will not change a single thing.
What I said still stands as 100% true. No matter how you look at it it's a stupid ban and will achieve nothing besides creating more dissent/hatred.
Why do people here even think for 1 second that this stupid 90 days ban will prevent "terrorists"?
The ban itself is not bad, the way Trump did it is retarded. It will not help with anything. All it did was create more chaos and affect people that were trying to get in the country legally.
Anyone who thinks otherwise is just living in his own dream world and not looking at reality.

 

[treetops]

Another failure by republicans

911 attackers were mostly from saudi arabia

Bin laden was killed in pakistan

Neither country made this anti terrorist list smh

Just like there were no WMDs in iraq, but we did build a pipeline and managed to create isis there....