Most Support Temporary Ban on Newcomers from Terrorist Havens - Rasmussen

[ready4ONE 5,400]

Since pretty much EVERYTHING else points to the general public NOT being okay with Trump/Bannon's Muslim ban, the stock market, plummetting Presidential popularity numbers, airport protests while Delusional talks of things going ever so smoothly, I am guessing that the conclusion of this poll is skewed by how it was worded and/or who happened to respond.

 

Either that or Make America Hate Again has really caught on.

[Boiler 43,857]

Lots of snowflakes but they are a tiny percentage of the population.

[smilesammich 10,727]

2 minutes ago, Boiler said:

Lots of snowflakes but they are a tiny percentage of the population.

true  have you thanked your electoral college today?

[Dakine10 5,452]

8 minutes ago, Boiler said:

Lots of snowflakes but they are a tiny percentage of the population.

  They can be pretty loud though. I remember how they were crying and whining trying to find some straw of proof that Obama wasn't born in America. They literally clung to that asinine hope for years. Truly snowflakes.

[bcking 3,157]

13 hours ago, jg121783 said:

There is no existing vetting process for some of these people. It is reasonable to temporarily stop them from entering the country until one is in place. These people are from countries where anti US terrorist groups exist. I think it is reasonable to have a system in place to check these people's histories to make sure there are no red flags. I am all for immigration. In fact we need immigrants for the future of our country but we can't just have a free for all.

All the countries banned did not qualify for the visa waiver program. That means that if anyone wanted to come into the US from any of those countries, they need to apply for a visa. 

 

A visa is a vetting process. Again we can argue whether the visas were doing their job, but to say there was "no vetting process" is just absolutely false. People from all 7 of the countries couldn't just waltz into the US whenever they like. Technically even people from the VWP countries can't do that, though the vetting for them is very very light.

[Boiler 43,857]

I think that was the point and the reason for the suspension to allow time to consider what needs to be done to have an effective system.

[smilesammich 10,727]

nah, i don't buy that innocence for a second. if they were concerned about fine tuning the system, they would have reached out from the managers/lawyers working in those systems for feedback. bannon's pulling some donald rumsfeld shock n awe type chaos. 

[bcking 3,157]

1 minute ago, Boiler said:

I think that was the point and the reason for the suspension to allow time to consider what needs to be done to have an effective system.

There have been just 3 people from those 7 countries to commit acts of terror in the USA. There have been no fatalities. 2 of them were naturalized citizens before they committed their terror acts. That leaves 1 person from those 7 countries since 2001.

 

How is that not a pretty darn effective system? 

 

If he is serious about "fixing" the system, he should be actually targetting the countries that have produced the terrorists. The fact that the ban is specific only to countries that have had little to no impact in our country suggests that there is an alterior motive. Or a motive to keep specific other countries off the ban list. It's a ridiculously hypocritical EO.

[smilesammich 10,727]

1 minute ago, bcking said:

There have been just 3 people from those 7 countries to commit acts of terror in the USA. There have been no fatalities. 2 of them were naturalized citizens before they committed their terror acts. That leaves 1 person from those 7 countries since 2001.

 

How is that not a pretty darn effective system? 

 

If he is serious about "fixing" the system, he should be actually targetting the countries that have produced the terrorists. The fact that the ban is specific only to countries that have had little to no impact in our country suggests that there is an alterior motive. Or a motive to keep specific other countries off the ban list. It's a ridiculously hypocritical EO.

personally i think trump bannon picked those countries (to start us off on the muslim ban) because obama created the list. now he just has to repeat "but this is obama's list and obama did the same thing" which is not 100% fact based, trump can't run with anything that's 100% on the up and up.

[bcking 3,157]

Just now, smilesammich said:

personally i think trump bannon picked those countries (to start us off on the muslim ban) because obama created the list. now he just has to repeat "but this is obama's list and obama did the same thing" which is not 100% fact based, trump can't run with anything that's 100% on the up and up.

I'm sure there are links to terrorism in all 7 of those countries. However it just seems practically that link is via visitors/immigrants coming to our shores. It just hasn't panned out that way. Only 1 person from all 7 countries in the last 16 years to commit an act of terror in the United States. 2 others who became naturalized citizens prior to their terrorist acts (so obviously there was plenty of opporunity to vet them before they acted out). There have been around 40 other terrorists in the US of muslim origin, and they all come from other countries. 

 

If it's about protection it's a really bad and ineffective EO. It won't do anything to make us safer. If it's not about protection, then what is it about?

[OriZ 3,157]

16 minutes ago, ready4ONE said:

Since pretty much EVERYTHING else points to the general public NOT being okay with Trump/Bannon's Muslim ban, the stock market, plummetting Presidential popularity numbers, airport protests while Delusional talks of things going ever so smoothly, I am guessing that the conclusion of this poll is skewed by how it was worded and/or who happened to respond.

 

Either that or Make America Hate Again has really caught on.

 

Wouldn't really say this necessarily has much to do with the stock market. Unfortunately, this is how finanfical journalism works: They take a look at what the market is doing or did that day, then they go over all of the day's headlines...if the market was up, they will find positive headlines to explain it with, if the market was down, they will attribute it to something bad....it's lazy at best but that's how it really works. The truth is barring short term knee jerk reactions the market is its own boss. I posted this chart in my thread almost two months ago:

 

Here's the updated one(Zoomed in a bit): Market hit resistance and came down. This is usually what happens and whatever news goes with it is usually used in hindsight to try and rationalize what the market is doing. Had the market kept going up they would have found a positive reason for that too and completely ignored Trump. Financial media is really good at after the fact rationalizing, instead of learning to analyze markets properly. 

 

 

I also don't understand the panic, the market made new ATH just as recent as Thursday. I'm the last one to say these markets are healthy, but a 1.5% correction since then is nothing to be all up in arms about, it can't be a straight shot up and we could easily make new highs very soon(although I have not changed my mind that these will be short lived). 1.5% corrections happen very frequently so I feel that this is just more fear mongering by people wanting to blame Trump for everything...including things he has very little to do with. Regardless of whether we see new highs or not and as I have been saying for a while now a crisis is already baked in the cake. While there are few things that can make the outcome a little better, there's many things that can make it worse. Some of Trump's plans(such as protectionism) are only going to make it worse. But will it all be on him? Absolutely not as the seeds have already been planted under the previous administration and I will not stand for it even once it happens and everybody gangs up on him for it cause I can already see that coming.

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

this is all I have to say about that 

 

Watchdog: Feds wrongly granted citizenship to hundreds facing deportation

 

 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/09/19/more-than-800-immigrants-mistakenly-granted-citizenship.html

 

 

Number of those wrongly given citizenship higher than initially reported

 

 

http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/20/politics/dhs-report-citizenship-deportations/

[smilesammich 10,727]

28 minutes ago, bcking said:

I'm sure there are links to terrorism in all 7 of those countries. However it just seems practically that link is via visitors/immigrants coming to our shores. It just hasn't panned out that way. Only 1 person from all 7 countries in the last 16 years to commit an act of terror in the United States. 2 others who became naturalized citizens prior to their terrorist acts (so obviously there was plenty of opporunity to vet them before they acted out). There have been around 40 other terrorists in the US of muslim origin, and they all come from other countries. 

 

If it's about protection it's a really bad and ineffective EO. It won't do anything to make us safer. If it's not about protection, then what is it about?

i think bannon is trying to establish trust with trump's base. they are xenophobic and clearly misinformed about immigration/visa processes and they were promised a muslim ban. for the most part, when say a white man shoots up an abortion clinic and kills a cop and two civilians, we don't nationally consider that a terror attack. we don't really talk about it at all. lone wolfs don't need visas and they don't operate in cells. we're not doing anything to weed out the homegrown variety matter of fact we're currently patting them on the back and trying to direct their attention to trump "look, calm down, your guy is in charge and he's going to keep you safe from foreign translators and students"

[smilesammich 10,727]

1 minute ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

this is all I have to say about that 

 

Watchdog: Feds wrongly granted citizenship to hundreds facing deportation

 

 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/09/19/more-than-800-immigrants-mistakenly-granted-citizenship.html

 

 

Number of those wrongly given citizenship higher than initially reported

 

 

http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/20/politics/dhs-report-citizenship-deportations/

so you're saying we should have a review of those already here, citizens?

[bcking 3,157]

Just realized something rather sad...

 

THe United Kingdom has supplied more (or at the very least an equal) number of terrorists on US soil (1 terrorist came from the UK, which is more than we can say for most of the countries on the ban).

 

So should we be banning the UK?

 

We should just blanket ban everyone and send the Statue of Liberty back to France.