United States Corrupt Twattery

[Bodhi]

But they didn't stop, they slowed down, people still got processed, and it was to address a very specific issue with two people who hadn't been vetted properly, not just a random list of countries populated by brown people. Competence/incompetence.

Um, the article from the time it happened stated that they stopped for 6 months - it is there in black and white. That is how it was reported at the time, to no backlash, even a small one.

And you could look at it as a random list of countries with brown people in them. Or you could look on it as a list of countries currently ravaged by civil war, and a list already drawn up by US Intelligence. If it was just against "brown people" I suspect he would have targetted the 85% of Islamic countries that aren't affected.

Shockingly implemented yes, but he said before the election he was going to do such a thing, and lo and behold he did it.

 

[Wij]

Um, the article from the time it happened stated that they stopped for 6 months - it is there in black and white. That is how it was reported at the time, to no backlash, even a small one.

And you could look at it as a random list of countries with brown people in them. Or you could look on it as a list of countries currently ravaged by civil war, and a list already drawn up by US Intelligence. If it was just against "brown people" I suspect he would have targetted the 85% of Islamic countries that aren't affected.

Shockingly implemented yes, but he said before the election he was going to do such a thing, and lo and behold he did it.

You're trying to have it both ways. He said before the election he wanted a Muslim ban.

 

[Wij]

Also this from the Snopes article Exioce posted:

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 … there was no outright ban.

Never mind trump's character or policies. He is just shit at presidenting.

 

[Wij]

Analysis | ‘Morning Joe’ has blacklisted Kellyanne Conway. And that’s not all.

Morning Joe is definitely a conservative show and one of Trump's favorites...

 

[DaGaffer]

Um, the article from the time it happened stated that they stopped for 6 months - it is there in black and white. That is how it was reported at the time, to no backlash, even a small one.

And you could look at it as a random list of countries with brown people in them. Or you could look on it as a list of countries currently ravaged by civil war, and a list already drawn up by US Intelligence. If it was just against "brown people" I suspect he would have targetted the 85% of Islamic countries that aren't affected.

Shockingly implemented yes, but he said before the election he was going to do such a thing, and lo and behold he did it.

Read the Snopes article, it specifically calls out the ABC News story as inaccurate, and why.

And as has been pointed out already, if you were going institute a ban on the basis of genuine risk, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan would go to the top of the list.

 

[Bodhi]

Read the Snopes article, it specifically calls out the ABC News story as inaccurate, and why.

And as has been pointed out already, if you were going institute a ban on the basis of genuine risk, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan would go to the top of the list.

It doesn't actually, it just states thats how ABC reported it. Which again, was my point. And yes, no doubt Pakistan and Saudi should have been on the list as well - but as they picked 7 countries that had already been identified as a threat, and Saudi and Pakistan weren't on it, maybe that's a question for the intelligence services? I mean there was no way the Trump administration were smart enough to pick those countries for themselves. They are real countries for starters....

And to those wondering why he keeps getting compared to Obama/Hillary etc, probably becuase they were politicians, and despite appearances, he is now one as well. So Obama etc are fairly useful as a frame of reference.

 

[Bodhi]

Details schmeetails @DaGaffer.

It's a common theme with tweedle dumb and tweedle dee. They just aren't bothered with the fine detail and nuance because it makes life (and holding their opinions) hard for them.

So, Obama definitely had the same ban going as Trump, the EU is defintely socialist because socialism is just a feeling not an economic system, and people who've started to choose to associate with a malleable and ever progressing (and therefore more accurate) form of gender identification are just pains in the ass for not sticking to their rigid (and simplistic) world view.

Tweedle dumb? Oh. I see what you did there. I SEE IT.

Shame in your hurry to clamber into the comforting warmth of Gaff's arse you kind of missed the nuance of what I was saying, ironically enough - it was reported at the time that the US had stopped accepting refugees from Iraq, and barely a murmur - certainly none of the current rush to get dogs and cats cohabiting the second Trump goes near Twitter. Constantly crying wolf about everything he does, will just mean if he does do something poperly scary (not continuing/developing existing policies), no one will care as they will have heard enough by then of how evil the Donald is.

Still, good to know I have a rigid world view. Rigid, but also enlightened enough to realise there is more than one type of socialism, and there's no point creating a new pidgeon hole for people (based on sexual orientation, rather than gender identification) when, if we must have pidgeon holes (and I'd really rather we didn't) a perfectly acceptable one already exists for people who don't use Tumblr.

 

[Raven]

You realise you are arguing with an imbecile? It never ends well.

 

[Job]

 

[DaGaffer]

Tweedle dumb? Oh. I see what you did there. I SEE IT.

Shame in your hurry to clamber into the comforting warmth of Gaff's arse you kind of missed the nuance of what I was saying, ironically enough - it was reported at the time that the US had stopped accepting refugees from Iraq, and barely a murmur - certainly none of the current rush to get dogs and cats cohabiting the second Trump goes near Twitter. Constantly crying wolf about everything he does, will just mean if he does do something poperly scary (not continuing/developing existing policies), no one will care as they will have heard enough by then of how evil the Donald is.

Because, no matter how often you try to draw the equivalence with the last administration, the two things are not comparable. One was a measured response to a specific issue in one country (and not a ban) which showed a bit of thought and process, and the other was random bullshit thrown around by nazis (and it was, it has Steve Bannon's ideological fingerprints all over it), that wasn't in response to a threat but random fear mongering and "look how tough we are" rhetoric, and worse, was incompetently implemented. Its not "crying wolf" if the wolf is actually there. The idea that we should somehow keep our powder dry until Trump does something really bad is ridiculous; he's doing really bad stuff right now. Oh and @Raven, Trump saying he's going to do stuff and then doing it? Not good if the stuff he's doing is terrible and ill-conceived. I don't care what he promised because the bulk of his promises were bad in the first place. Why should people say "well he said he was going to do it, so that's alright then"?

Still, good to know I have a rigid world view. Rigid, but also enlightened enough to realise there is more than one type of socialism,

No, you tried to claim Social Democracy is just socialism (on the shaky basis that someone coined the phrase "Eurosocialism"). It isn't, as was pointed out by several people, with citations, but that didn't fit the narrative so you ignored it.

and there's no point creating a new pidgeon hole for people (based on sexual orientation, rather than gender identification) when, if we must have pidgeon holes (and I'd really rather we didn't) a perfectly acceptable one already exists for people who don't use Tumblr.

To be honest I give no fucks about this, (although we already pigeon hole by sexual orientation rather than gender anyway), the only thing I find disturbing about all this trans stuff at the moment is this whole trend towards letting kids identify as a different gender when they haven't even reached puberty yet. Its dangerous and stupid, and says more about the parents' insecurities than the kids', but anyhoo, off-topic.

 

[Raven]

Great! Ok...but nobody can pretend to be surprised...

This faux surprise is just another symptom of the idiocy that surrounds politics and its coverage at the moment.

I also don't think stopping Abdul the heart surgeon from starting his taxi driving empire is quite the same as engaging Russian jets over Syria, which is pretty much what Hilary was chomping at the bit to do.

 

[Anastasia]

Does it really matter if is reported as a ban, or a slow-down? Isn't it the point that it wasn't headline news at the time, there was no internet hysteria surrounding something which, however you want to nuance it, was a very similar policy to the one Trump is trying to enforce. If Trump was willing to court the media rather than confront them, maybe he'd get better headlines / more media support for his policies?

 

[DaGaffer]

Does it really matter if is reported as a ban, or a slow-down? Isn't it the point that it wasn't headline news at the time, there was no internet hysteria surrounding something which, however you want to nuance it, was a very similar policy to the one Trump is trying to enforce. If Trump was willing to court the media rather than confront them, maybe he'd get better headlines / more media support for his policies?

Fucking hell. It is not a similar policy! That's the whole point, and that's the key reason it did garner massive headlines (playing the whole "the Media loved Obama" card in a world where Fox News exists is ridiculous). Stop trying to play the cheap false equivalence game, again!

 

[Vae]

Does it really matter if is reported as a ban, or a slow-down? Isn't it the point that it wasn't headline news at the time, there was no internet hysteria surrounding something which, however you want to nuance it, was a very similar policy to the one Trump is trying to enforce. If Trump was willing to court the media rather than confront them, maybe he'd get better headlines / more media support for his policies?

You can't see the difference between increased security checks for Visa admission from one country (~60,000 people I think I read) vs barring ALL people (bar diplomats) from 6 countries including Visa or green card holders!

 

[Anastasia]

Of course I can see differences, but I can also see similarities. I'm not playing any cards or games, simply observing the different way in which these two events were reported. Trump is self-confessed in his antipathy towards the media, the only thing about him which I applaud. Denying that the Obama administration was more polished in its handling of the media is debatable at best.

 

[Scouse]

Does it really matter if is reported as a ban, or a slow-down?

Yes. Because they're totally different things.

One is a ban, one is a higher level of checking.

however you want to nuance it

You don't "nuance" something. Nuance isn't a fucking verb. It's the ability to tell the difference between two different things.

And in this case nuance - a subtle difference - is an unsuitable word. There's no nuance here - there's a ban, and there's no ban. Not "subtle" at all.

 

[Bodhi]

Because, no matter how often you try to draw the equivalence with the last administration, the two things are not comparable. One was a measured response to a specific issue in one country (and not a ban) which showed a bit of thought and process, and the other was random bullshit thrown around by nazis (and it was, it has Steve Bannon's ideological fingerprints all over it), that wasn't in response to a threat but random fear mongering and "look how tough we are" rhetoric, and worse, was incompetently implemented. Its not "crying wolf" if the wolf is actually there. The idea that we should somehow keep our powder dry until Trump does something really bad is ridiculous; he's doing really bad stuff right now. Oh and @Raven, Trump saying he's going to do stuff and then doing it? Not good if the stuff he's doing is terrible and ill-conceived. I don't care what he promised because the bulk of his promises were bad in the first place. Why should people say "well he said he was going to do it, so that's alright then"?



No, you tried to claim Social Democracy is just socialism (on the shaky basis that someone coined the phrase "Eurosocialism"). It isn't, as was pointed out by several people, with citations, but that didn't fit the narrative so you ignored it.

I think you seem to be under some sort of misunderstanding thatI think the Travel Ban was a good idea - I don't at all, as the US Immigration checks are already pretty thorough (one of our colleagues was detained at LAX for 3 hours as he overstayed a visa by 2 days), however travel restrictions from those parts of the world aren't unheard of - mainly due to the civil wars going on - for instance Kuwait have brought in a similar restriction on 5 of the 7 countries. I won't even go there on the countries that have a travel ban if you are unfortunate enough to have an Israeli passport. But is it a bad enough/unprecedented enough idea to warrant all the howling and screaming? Not really imo.

Appointing Bannon to the Joint Chiefs was far more worrying, yet not a single protestor I saw outside LAX seemed to care about that.

Given the issues we've had in Europe I can see the logic, even if I don't necessarily agree with it. Like Anastacia I am very interested in how the two very similar restrictions were reported, and the wildly different reactions. There certainly isn't the difference in approaches as can be seen by the different reporting styles/reactions.

And it was more on the "shaky" basis that the Wiki page on Socialism had a massive section dedicated to Social Democracy, as a development of socialism - bit hard to figure out of course. Of course the EU isn't pure socialism, as everyone outside Venezuela figured out that was a terrible idea 150 years ago, and I'm pretty sure Venezuela would now agree.

 

[Bodhi]

Yes. Because they're totally different things.

One is a ban, one is a higher level of checking.



You don't "nuance" something. Nuance isn't a fucking verb. It's the ability to tell the difference between two different things.

And in this case nuance - a subtle difference - is an unsuitable word. There's no nuance here - there's a ban, and there's no ban. Not "subtle" at all.

You can "nuance" something quite easily, given it can be used as a noun as well as a verb.

nuance - definition of nuance in English | Oxford Dictionaries

Unless, of course, you know more than the writers of the Dictionary?

 

[Anastasia]

Thanks for pointing out the grammatical error, really made your point. I was aware of it though, so all you've really achieved is to make yourself look like more of a pedant.

There is no point in trying to discuss things here is there? There are such diametrically opposing views that no-one is bothering to think about what anybody from the "other" side writes, because as soon as the "other side" label has been attached you are free to discount anything they say. Really intelligent behaviour (yes, that isn't a sentence, I am aware of that as well). Shouting, swearing, name calling and general rudeness has never, in my experience, swayed any argument, but that is pretty much all we get here, from the regular correspondents.

I'll labour my point once more. Trump attempted to ban all arrivals from certain countries, in the name of national security. Obama attempted to ban some arrivals from certain countries, in the name of national security. If you can't see any similarities between those two statements because they are totally different then there is no point in labouring the point further.

 

[Scouse]

You can "nuance" something quite easily

Incorrect usage in that context. Interpret would have been an accurate choice of word.

@Anastasia - obama's policy involved heightened checks on arrivals from certain countries. Trumps includes a total ban on refugees from Syria (not just "immigrants" - therefore is a treaty violation) including people who already have visas from other countries.

Nobody is saying that countries can't ban individuals (which Obama did and we do) - but a blanket ban from certain countries? That's wholly and substantively different from requiring stronger vetting.

So no. They're very different things and the similarities just aren't there. You're comparing apples and oranges.

 

[Bodhi]

Heheh I did place a bet that when I posted that you would try arguing with the dictionary.

Looks like I owe myself a fiver.

 

[Scouse]

Heheh I did place a bet that when I posted that you would try arguing with the dictionary.

I'm not arguing with the dictionary - I'm pointing out context and usage.

If you say "I right oranged that football" I'd point out that perhaps a different word should have been used, not that orange wasn't a word.

 

[Bodhi]

I'm not arguing with the dictionary - I'm pointing out context and usage.

If you say "I right oranged that football" I'd point out that perhaps a different word should have been used, not that orange wasn't a word.

Yes, it's totally like that. Well it would be if I'd said Orange "isn't a fucking verb" then got shown in the dictionary that it is.

But of course, you are right and the dictionary is wrong.

 

[Scouse]

But of course, you are right and the dictionary is wrong.

Could say the same when you were provided the dictionary definition of socialism and ignored it.

And not just the dictionary - multiple sources. So F U buddy

 

[Job]

Im getting seriously board off this.
It started off as European capitalism/socialism, the EU has turned to Buddhism while you argued it out.

 

[Job]

Baited..hooked.
Next I'll just insert the wrong elephant.

 

[Tom]

Trump attempted to ban all arrivals from certain countries, in the name of national security. Obama attempted to ban some arrivals from certain countries, in the name of national security.

There's a big difference between closing a road to all traffic and imposing a speed limit.

 

[Job]

Obama spent 600 million on Mexican border control..to repair the fence, increase patrols and reduce illegal immigration.
He embraced drone strikes with a heavy civilian death count.
Obama's Embrace of Drone Strikes Will Be a Lasting Legacy - NYTimes.com

But here we are arguing wether a part or full ban is the difference between racist thug and reasoned statesman.

 

[Gwadien]

Obama spent 600 million on Mexican border control..to repair the fence, increase patrols and reduce illegal immigration.
He embraced drone strikes with a heavy civilian death count.
Obama's Embrace of Drone Strikes Will Be a Lasting Legacy - NYTimes.com

But here we are arguing wether a part or full ban is the difference between racist thug and reasoned statesman.

Can you stop with the 'yeah but he did it first' when justifying useless wasteful policies.

ty

 

[Job]

If we start arguing wasteful policies, then we're gonna be here all year.
How about Nasa considering Trumps request to put astronauts in the next atm unmanned test mission.

NASA, heeding Trump, may add astronauts to a test flight moon mission