Trump to a T

[stihlmadasever]

Trump has effectivley sponsored terrorism...

[dirtybiker]

Yep, spot on! Trumps a dangerous buffoon!

 

Trump has effectivley sponsored terrorism...

[Big J]

I particularly enjoyed the bit in his CIA speech about how America should have kept the oil when they were last in Iraq. Oh, and that they might get another chance.

[shavey]

Have a look at this link http://www.sethfrantzman.com

 

And click on the header Obama administration made the Muslim ban possible

[Mull]

Have a look at this link http://www.sethfrantzman.com

 

And click on the header Obama administration made the Muslim ban possible

 

 

What's your point shavey?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Arbtalk

[eggsarascal]

Link doesn't work for me.

[shavey]

What's your point shavey?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Arbtalk

 

Hello mull The point is the media is blaming this whole travel ban from these countries on Donald trump when it was already in motion in 2015 by the Obama administration

 

Hopefully somebody can go onto this guy's webpage and get a link and you can read this article

[Mull]

Hello mull The point is the media is blaming this whole travel ban from these countries on Donald trump when it was already in motion in 2015 by the Obama administration

 

 

 

Hopefully somebody can go onto this guy's webpage and get a link and you can read this article

 

 

Ok, if it was possible, then Obama chose not to use it for past 2 yrs, Donald did!

Just because it's possible for me to murder someone, I don't think I'll bother.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Arbtalk

[Daniël Bos]

That article is rationalisation of a pre-existing viewpoint, not reason.

Yes, under the Obama administration those particular countries were marked as being of potential concern, and people travelling from them should come under stricter scrutiny before being allowed into the USA.

But to ban all citizens from these countries does not do that, rather the opposite. It places no extra scrutiny on any individuals, it presumes that any person hailing from them is a high security threat.

As pointed out by the OP, and by the fact the previous government did not act in such a divisive, contrary and discriminatory fashion, this ban makes no sense whatsoever.

Nor does that article.

It's well written, but chooses only those facts that support the pre-existing viewpoint of the author. It does not look at the full range of facts to form a reasonable argument thereafter.

[Mull]

That article is rationalisation of a pre-existing viewpoint, not reason.

Yes, under the Obama administration those particular countries were marked as being of potential concern, and people travelling from them should come under stricter scrutiny before being allowed into the USA.

But to ban all citizens from these countries does not do that, rather the opposite. It places no extra scrutiny on any individuals, it presumes that any person hailing from them is a high security threat.

As pointed out by the OP, and by the fact the previous government did not act in such a divisive, contrary and discriminatory fashion, this ban makes no sense whatsoever.

Nor does that article.

It's well written, but chooses only those facts that support the pre-existing viewpoint of the author. It does not look at the full range of facts to form a reasonable argument thereafter.

 

 

Yup!

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Arbtalk