2016 Election -- Part II
Poll
 | 57 votes (47.89%) | ||
| | 33 votes (27.73%) | ||
| | 12 votes (10.08%) | ||
| | 10 votes (8.4%) | ||
| | 4 votes (3.36%) | ||
| | 3 votes (2.52%) |
119 members have voted
Quote: RonCOh, well...just more worthless hate from a lefty.
...but this hate isn't even based on something he did. It is just hate to be hateful.
Get used to it. It's definitely not "worthless."
Donald is not a normal person. He is the most insecure and thin skinned man to ever be President. For us lefties, the next four years is about exploiting his insecurities (and having a whole lot of fun while doing it!).
We do it by constantly pointing out he lost the popular vote by millions. He feels illegitimate (as he should).
We did it successfully on Inauguration Day by mocking his tiny crowds. He still can't get over that.
So when a picture with his combover flying in the wind and his big fat ass pointing at the camera comes out.... yeah, we're gonna share it far and wide (no pun intended).
Quote: ams288So when a picture with his combover flying in the wind and his big fat ass pointing at the camera comes out.... yeah, we're gonna share it far and wide (no pun intended).
The guy should work out.
Living the good life comes at a physical cost, with all the delicious food available: tough to say "no."
Put down that fork, lift up those weights.
He's got a rear end that could compete with J-Lo and Kim.
That's the result t we get when no substantive discussions can be summoned up.Quote: RonCThere is so much there...your post is full of intelligent content.
He got on Marine One. The blades were spinning.
Not sure what the heck your point is...he's old? His suit moved because of the rotors? He is ugly? His hair is messed up? He is overweight?
Oh, well...just more worthless hate from a lefty.
...but this hate isn't even based on something he did. It is just hate to be hateful.
The trade agreement stuff is a huge gamble, only time will tell if it pays off or if Mexico is running off to China as we speak. I think he means well with it but I'm pessimistic. If it doesn't work it's going to be a huge hit to American farmers, as well as the same jobs he's trying to bring back.
Quote: SanchoPanzaThat's the result t we get when no substantive discussions can be summoned up.
There is no chance of that around here any more. This place is a disaster when it comes to real discussions about things like this.
I won't assign blame; both sides are equally out there a lot of the time.
Quote: ams288Get used to it.
I'm already used to it. A picture of a big man, posted by a small man. So childish. This does nothing to bolster your credibility as a serious political commentator. Like the boy who cried "wolf", when and if you do have something worthwhile to say, others may just dismiss it without even reading. Everyone loses. Meanwhile, there are so many truly important issues facing our nation.
Quote: bobbartop
Then he gives $221 million to the Palestinian Authority in his very last hours in office.
Apparently this has been put on hold and/or reversed. As usual, I'm on the late train.
Quote: bobbartopI'm already used to it. A picture of a big man, posted by a small man. So childish. This does nothing to bolster your credibility as a serious political commentator.
Serious political commentator? Me? Have you seen my avatar?
It's much more fun to make fun of Donald's fat bald ass getting on Marine One than it is to talk about his imaginary wall.
Quote: Bozhttp://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/01/26/nascar-driver-carl-edwards-says-would-consider-2018-senate-bid.html
Here is 1 seat the Dems can expect to lose in 18 if Edwards runs. McCaskill only kept the seat in 12 because the GOP ran a crazy anti abortion candidate named Todd Akin who was far from the mainstream. Edwards should be a great candidate and already is popular in the state.
Note Trump won the state by almost 20 points.
Akin was my former Rep. and did fine. He is much less crazy than our new Governor, and tons less crazy than Trump and most of his cabinet. Akin was poised to win in 2012 too until he said this (quote from Wiki). Akin just said something dumb and uninformed. It sure as hell didn't affect Trump this election.
"Well you know, people always want to try to make that as one of those things, well how do you, how do you slice this particularly tough sort of ethical question. First of all, from what I understand from doctors, that's really rare. If it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down. But let's assume that maybe that didn't work or something. I think there should be some punishment, but the punishment ought to be on the rapist and not attacking the child."
If it would have been said in this past election instead, he would have still beat McCaskill. Missouri was totally brainwashed in this past election and now we've mostly become a Republican hick state, I'm not sure what exactly happened to cause this. Probably Trump promising a bunch of crap to poor hicks, which they actually believed (LOL) and got them motivated enough to vote. The Democrats did much better in state races relatively, but when Trump wins by ~20, hard for any Democrat to win a statewide race.
Also note in that article that Edwards didn't claim he would run for a particular party yet. But if he wants to guarantee a win, he needs to be a Republican. But he would have a chance winning as a Democrat as well. But considering he's a NASCAR driver, studied engineering, and is the great-great-great grandson of Rutherford B. Hayes, I'd assume Republican anyway. He's gotta be better than Blunt.
Quote: bobbartopI'm already used to it. A picture of a big man, posted by a small man. So childish. This does nothing to bolster your credibility as a serious political commentator. Like the boy who cried "wolf", when and if you do have something worthwhile to say, others may just dismiss it without even reading. Everyone loses.
Hmm
bobbartop is tired of people making fun of trump and wants serious political discussion
??????
Bobartop, just step back and look where you are posting
This a board devoted to having fun, primarily gambling and Vegas
I'm here for fun, AMS posts are entertaining
We are having fun as we should on a Vegas/gambling board
Quote: bobbartop
Meanwhile, there are so many truly important issues facing our nation.
Yup.
So you think the best place to go is a board dedicated to depraved entertainment
lol
Quote: terapinedHmm
bobbartop is tired of people making fun of trump....
I didn't say that, though, did I. Don't misquote me.
Quote: tringlomanewe've mostly become a hick state, I'm not sure what exactly happened to cause this. Probably Trump promising a bunch of crap to poor hicks.
"Become?"Trig, you're in a state of savages that still allows smoking in restaurants, and allows open bottle. I don't think this is a new thing, may as well call it southern Wisconsin. Too many "Hoosiers.", lol. Id say it was a given trump would crush Missouri, a lot of the stereotypical wheelhouse for what he pandered to there, IMO.
Quote: RonCThere is no chance of that around here any more. This place is a disaster when it comes to real discussions about things like this.
I won't assign blame; both sides are equally out there a lot of the time.
Some people are either unwilling or unable to have an intellectually honest conversation.
Quote:CNN)President Donald Trump enters office facing low job approval ratings and skepticism from voters, according to a new Quinnipiac University poll released Thursday.
The survey found that 36% of American voters approve of Trump's handling of his job after his first week, while 44% say they disapprove. By comparison, former President Barack Obama received a 59%-25% approval rating in the first Quinnipiac poll taken after his inauguration in 2009.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/27/politics/trump-approval-rating-quinnipiac-poll/
Let all take notice and heed what is occurring in the First Lady's $150 million suit against Webster Tarpley. politicoQuote: RonCThere is no chance of that around here any more. This place is a disaster when it comes to real discussions about things like this.
I won't assign blame; both sides are equally out there a lot of the time.
Quote: MrV
cite: https://portland.craigslist.org/mlt/rnr/5976102264.html
I had to laugh. My sister lived there for
years and hated it. Now she's in Seattle
and it's not any better. Like living in
Calcutta, only a lot colder."It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
Suspended the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program for 120 days, prohibiting the arrival of refugees into the United States from any country during that period
Ordered the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security to undertake a complete review of the refugee vetting process
Permanently banned Syrian refugees until President Trump determined otherwise, and
Lowered the ceiling of refugees allowed to enter the United States during FY 2017 to 50,000.
Finally a president who understands the
problem and how to deal with it. One
step at a time. Obama taught us all that
executive orders are the way to go. Thanks
for that, Barry..
Huh?
That means AMERICANS will pay, not Mexicans.
Jesus: talk about the danger of letting amateurs run the government.
Quote: EvenBobPresident Trump Signs Executive Order Temporarily Halting All Refugees
Suspended the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program for 120 days, prohibiting the arrival of refugees into the United States from any country during that period
Ordered the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security to undertake a complete review of the refugee vetting process
Permanently banned Syrian refugees until President Trump determined otherwise, and
Lowered the ceiling of refugees allowed to enter the United States during FY 2017 to 50,000.
Finally a president who understands the
problem and how to deal with it. One
step at a time. Obama taught us all that
executive orders are the way to go. Thanks
for that, Barry..
Well, it's a pretty strange list of countries they picked. The EO reportedly lists the 9-11 hijackers and other recent terror on American soil as the basis for the bans. Only problem is, not one of the 9-11 terrorists, nor Boston, nor Orlando, nor San Bernardino, nor any of the other attacks, attempted or successful on American soil since 9-11, came from those 7 countries.
Oops. So much for that justification. Kinda just leaves xenophobia.
Trump also says an exception has been made for Christian Syrian refugees, claims it's been impossible "or nearly " (he corrected himself) for them to get here, while Muslims have been able to come. Fact is, the numbers of Christians accepted has been in proportion to the number of them in the Syrian population. I'm guessing that was deliberate, as there should be no religious test for entering the US.
I think this clause will at least bolster the argument, if not make it, that this is an unconstitutional EO.
EB should be making a big showing over here
Mr Teflon just got 6 days over at DT
EB used to be very clever in his comebacks skating close to the line
Maybe its age and getting older
Quote: terapinedSorry everybody
EB should be making a big showing over here
Mr Teflon just got 6 days over at DT
EB used to be very clever in his comebacks skating close to the line
Maybe its age and getting older
It is interesting...did you actually report the infraction before the other member said something about you having been insulted? Not make a comment, since you know the board there is less moderated, but report it?
Quote: MrVSo, to "make Mexico pay for the wall" Trump will slap a twenty percent tariff on goods coming into the USA from Mexico?
Huh?
That means AMERICANS will pay, not Mexicans.
Jesus: talk about the danger of letting amateurs run the government.
I'm not an expert in economics.... But if the Mexicans raise the prices of the goods they are selling to make up for the tariffs, won't they just not be able to sell the products at all? If they could just raise the price 20% and still sell the products, wouldn't the price already be 20% higher? The 20% tariff will just make it harder for the Mexicans to compete with US made products, no? Or it will just cut into the profits of the Mexican companies?
I would agree with you if this wasn't a unilateral edict.... If every country imposed such a tariff on all products it would lead to less products crossing national borders, and I would agree with you that that would not be a good thing.
I do agree with you that it is a bad idea to try and use a tariff to try and fix a specific problem. If Mr. Prez feels we need a wall for national security, then build the wall and find the resources elsewhere.... I'm sure there are many cuts that will save us money (Obamacare, etc...)
Quote: RonCIt is interesting...did you actually report the infraction before the other member said something about you having been insulted? Not make a comment, since you know the board there is less moderated, but report it?
Here was my thinking
I actually had him blocked at the time lol
AMS responded to one of them copying EB
I was a bit taken back but let it slide because I thought a mod saw it and it gets rough sometimes on DT
Then the Wiz warned Stink which I thought was a borderline mild insult
Warnings are rare on DT so I was very surprised
http://diversitytomorrow.com/thread/2074/0/#post69205
I responded
http://diversitytomorrow.com/thread/2074/0/#post69208
It is estimated that 20M people would lose their insurance if Obamacare is repealed without replacement.
This study http://www.pnhp.org/excessdeaths/health-insurance-and-mortality-in-US-adults.pdf says that 1 person out of 1000 without insurance would die because of that lack of insurance.
That means the wall would be paid for by 20,000 lives a year. American lives, not Mexican lives, so Mexico still wouldn't be paying for the wall.
Quote: Dalex64Pay for the wall from Obamacare?
It is estimated that 20M people would lose their insurance if Obamacare is repealed without replacement.
This study http://www.pnhp.org/excessdeaths/health-insurance-and-mortality-in-US-adults.pdf says that 1 person out of 1000 without insurance would die because of that lack of insurance.
That means the wall would be paid for by 20,000 lives a year. American lives, not Mexican lives, so Mexico still wouldn't be paying for the wall.
I find your response to SOOPOO pretty silly. It is the way many of our fellow citizens and others are talking today, which is why divisiveness prevails and no one can have a real conversation about things for any length of time.
SOOPOO mentions using SAVINGS from fixing Obamacare, not from just shutting it down altogether, and he also mentions other sources. He is in no way proposing that millions of Americans stay or become uninsured.
I don't really give two yanks about the way people talk here, but this kind of crap is pervasive everywhere now. You can't say "Hillary was a bad candidate" without hearing all kinds of spew about Trump--none of which addresses the actual fact that Hillary was a bad candidate because she does not connect well with people (among other things). In the same manner, you can't say anything negative about Trump without the chance to be lambasted for not licking his boots.
Obamacare needs fixed or repealed/replaced. It won't continue to work in the current form with premiums going up >10% every year as salaries have remained stagnant. A better system is needed. Some Democrats admitted that they wouldn't mind it becoming too expensive when it was passed, believing they would still be in power and replace it with single payer. Republicans did not seem to really think that they would win this election, so they are way behind on the "replace" option.
Yes, AMS288, both sides are too entrenched in wanting everything their way and we'll not get a lot done like that. Look at Obama and the Republicans. Obama's idea of compromise is to say pass my plan and we will call it a bipartisan solution. The Republican response was to sit on their hands and do little, lose the battle of the media, and let Obama control the day too often. By the way, that is also how we ended up with Trump...
Quote: terapinedSorry everybody
EB should be making a big showing over here
Mr Teflon just got 6 days over at DT
EB used to be very clever in his comebacks skating close to the line
Maybe its age and getting older
Five-day suspension for:
1. Personal insult. In particular, the reference to EB's age.
2. Hijacking. I don't see what this has to do with the 2016 election.
3. Attempting to take a feud from one site to the other.
p.s. Happy Chinese new year.
p.p.s. I've received an impassioned plea for leniency for Terapined with an offer to serve some of his time. Let me say that I consider Terapined one of the nicest members of this board and it pains me to suspend him. However, rules are rules. I'd like to remind the forum that to serve some time for another's suspension, you had to have had something to do with the suspension in the first place.
p.p.p.s. Terapinded served two days before a previous suspension was overturned on appeal. So, I'm giving credit for two days served for that. He will come off suspension on Tuesday.
Quote: RonCYes, AMS288, both sides are too entrenched in wanting everything their way and we'll not get a lot done like that.
Hey! I'm actually enjoying watching the GOP grapple with the reality of Obamacare repeal.
Whatever their replacement will be (if there is one) - it will harm millions of Americans, and the GOP will own that. That leaked audio tape the Washington Post obtained shows that the GOP congressmen know this - and it frightens them.
Pre-existing conditions will return. Lifetime maximums will return (better not get cancer!). Parents won't be able to keep their kids on their plans up to the age of 26 anymore.
Thankfully I get my insurance through my employer so it won't affect me much (at least at first - it is possible they tank the entire insurance market and hike premiums massively for everyone with all the uncertainty they are creating). I just get to watch from afar and remind the lower income Trump voters who will lose their coverage that this is what they voted for. Congratulations!
Quote: SOOPOOI'm not an expert in economics.... But if the Mexicans raise the prices of the goods they are selling to make up for the tariffs, won't they just not be able to sell the products at all? If they could just raise the price 20% and still sell the products, wouldn't the price already be 20% higher? The 20% tariff will just make it harder for the Mexicans to compete with US made products, no? Or it will just cut into the profits of the Mexican companies?
I would agree with you if this wasn't a unilateral edict.... If every country imposed such a tariff on all products it would lead to less products crossing national borders, and I would agree with you that that would not be a good thing.
I do agree with you that it is a bad idea to try and use a tariff to try and fix a specific problem. If Mr. Prez feels we need a wall for national security, then build the wall and find the resources elsewhere.... I'm sure there are many cuts that will save us money (Obamacare, etc...)
Foreign companies often increase the price sufficiently to be profitable, and the domestic producers will take advantage of the lacking of pricing competition to price gouging the business and non-business consumers.
If tariff is placed on cars, then is it fair for a pit boss, a card dealer and other workers in non-auto industry to pay higher car price just to support workers in the auto manufacturing/supplying industry?
When capitalist/human's greed, normal profit, risk/reward are taken into consideration, let's say an increase in price of 20% from manufacturers/producers often can translate to an increase of 30%, 40%, 50%, 60% or even more when the products reach the consumers because wholesalers, distributers, retailers, and many other middlemen must have a cut of the profits (not including higher sale tax paid by the consumers). Mylan's EpiPen is an example of the out of control cost due to capitalist/human's greed, profit, risk/reward ...
Quote: ams288Hey! I'm actually enjoying watching the GOP grapple with the reality of Obamacare repeal.
I bet!!
Quote: ams288Whatever their replacement will be (if there is one) - it will harm millions of Americans, and the GOP will own that. That leaked audio tape the Washington Post obtained shows that the GOP congressmen know this - and it frightens them.
Pre-existing conditions will return. Lifetime maximums will return (better not get cancer!). Parents won't be able to keep their kids on their plans up to the age of 26 anymore.
Sounds like speculation to me. They haven't even voted on the bill yet since it doesn't exist. You are being like Nancy Pelosi--instead of saying that we have to pass the bill to see what's in it, you are saying that we already know what will be in the bill before it is even written.
If the GOP is truly scared, then they should figure out that the idea is to fix the problems with repeal/replace, not make them larger.
The funny thing is (and I am assuming they actually said they were worried; I did not go to the link) that they, like all freaking politicians, are more worried about the next election than about actually saying we need to dig in and write a better plan. I don't know what they will do, but it is always about the next election with politicians, not the good of the people. Yeah, your peeps are the same. Sorry. it is a fact.
Quote: ams288Thankfully I get my insurance through my employer so it won't affect me much (at least at first - it is possible they tank the entire insurance market and hike premiums massively for everyone with all the uncertainty they are creating). I just get to watch from afar and remind the lower income Trump voters who will lose their coverage that this is what they voted for. Congratulations!
I have good coverage due to being a military retiree. they keep threatening to jack up the cost of my "free" medical that I was promised for being in more than 20 years, but they aren't talking about numbers that are unreasonable. Yet.
That eight-year-old study also said, " Currently, 46 millionQuote: Dalex64Pay for the wall from Obamacare?
It is estimated that 20M people would lose their insurance if Obamacare is repealed without replacement.
This study http://www.pnhp.org/excessdeaths/health-insurance-and-mortality-in-US-adults.pdf says that 1 person out of 1000 without insurance would die because of that lack of insurance.
That means the wall would be paid for by 20,000 lives a year. American lives, not Mexican lives, so Mexico still wouldn't be paying for the wall.
Americans lack health coverage." That means that if we accept the widely hailed assertion that the Affordable Care Act is covering 22 million, including all those millions involved in the expansion of Medicaid, 160,000 lives have been lost thanks to the Affordable Care Act. Not much of a record to stand on!
Quote: Dalex64
It is estimated that 20M people would lose their insurance if Obamacare is repealed without replacement.
.
I think what you really mean is 20 million people will be responsible for paying for the true value of their health insurance, not the taxpayers. There already is a safety net for the poor (Medicaid) which predated Obamacare.
Quote: RonCI find your response to SOOPOO pretty silly. It is the way many of our fellow citizens and others are talking today, which is why divisiveness prevails and no one can have a real conversation about things for any length of time.
SOOPOO mentions using SAVINGS from fixing Obamacare, not from just shutting it down altogether, and he also mentions other sources. He is in no way proposing that millions of Americans stay or become uninsured.
All I did is reply to what he said in that post:
Quote: SOOPOOI'm sure there are many cuts that will save us money (Obamacare, etc...)
I interpreted "cuts" as in "remove" and "etc" to mean in addition to other things.
Quote:I don't really give two yanks about the way people talk here, but this kind of crap is pervasive everywhere now. You can't say "Hillary was a bad candidate" without hearing all kinds of spew about Trump--none of which addresses the actual fact that Hillary was a bad candidate because she does not connect well with people (among other things). In the same manner, you can't say anything negative about Trump without the chance to be lambasted for not licking his boots.
Hillary was a bad candidate.
Quote:Obamacare needs fixed or repealed/replaced. It won't continue to work in the current form with premiums going up >10% every year as salaries have remained stagnant. A better system is needed. Some Democrats admitted that they wouldn't mind it becoming too expensive when it was passed, believing they would still be in power and replace it with single payer. Republicans did not seem to really think that they would win this election, so they are way behind on the "replace" option.
I am all for repairing, replacing, refining, calling it trumpcare after the canges are made if you like, but not repealing without a replacement.
As for how fast premiums are rising, they also rose faster than wages for most of the 10 years before obamacare was enacted.
Quote: SanchoPanzaThat eight-year-old study also said, " Currently, 46 million
Americans lack health coverage." That means that if we accept the widely hailed assertion that the Affordable Care Act is covering 22 million, including all those millions involved in the expansion of Medicaid, 160,000 lives have been lost thanks to the Affordable Care Act. Not much of a record to stand on!
I'm not sure what you are saying or how you are arriving at 160,000 lives lost thanks to the aca.
Quote: Dalex64I'm not sure what you are saying or how you are arriving at 160,000 lives lost thanks to the aca.
It's a complete B.S. statistic he made up.
Quote: SOOPOOI think what you really mean is 20 million people will be responsible for paying for the true value of their health insurance, not the taxpayers. There already is a safety net for the poor (Medicaid) which predated Obamacare.
The number 20 million who would lose their insurance or be unable to get insurance is corroborated at
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/jan/05/what-would-be-impact-if-affordable-care-act-repeal/
they quote numbers from a congressional budget office report.
Quote:The major sources of losses would include people no longer able to obtain Medicaid coverage under the law’s expansion, and people who would be unable to afford health insurance without the help of federal subsidies currently provided under the law.
That is the loss of life incurred by the 24 million people left uncovered by the so-called comprehensive care under the Affordable Care Act. If you are using the OP's estimate of deaths from repeal of the ACA.Quote: Dalex64I'm not sure what you are saying or how you are arriving at 160,000 lives lost thanks to the aca.
The participants were from Egypt and Saudi Arabia.
Neither of those countries are on Trump's newly-coined list of forbidden countries.
Why not?
I'll refrain from pestering the expert mathematicians here to explain how 46 minus 22 equals 24. Also multiplying 20 or so by 8 and going conservative side with estimates.Quote: ams288It's a complete B.S. statistic he made up.
first starting out campaigning and the Brits
said Trump would get banned for life from
GB if he won? So he wins and it's a love fest
in the WH. The Queen even wants to meet him.
It's good to be The Donald.
"President Donald Trump welcomed his first foreign leader to the White House on Friday, Britain's Theresa May.
The pair bonded over a bust of Winston Churchill in the American president's office and were later seen walking hand-in-hand from down the West Wing Colonnade on their way to a joint press conference.
May announced at a news conference that the Queen has invited Trump for a state visit to the UK and revealed that the president and first lady had accepted."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4164952/Trump-welcomes-Oval-Office-foreign-leader-May.html
Quote: MrVThe worst radical Islamist terrorist attack on the USA was 9/11.
The participants were from Egypt and Saudi Arabia.
Don't forget Cheney, he's from Wyoming.
Quote: beachbumbabs
Fact is, the numbers of Christians accepted has been in proportion to the number of them in the Syrian population. I'm guessing that was deliberate, as there should be no religious test for entering the US.
Says who?
He doesn't want to anger his stakeholders and business partners.Quote: MrVThe worst radical Islamist terrorist attack on the USA was 9/11.
The participants were from Egypt and Saudi Arabia.
Neither of those countries are on Trump's newly-coined list of forbidden countries.
Why not?
https://www.nydailynews.com/amp/news/politics/trump-muslim-ban-excludes-countries-linked-businesses-article-1.2957956
Quote: MrVThe worst radical Islamist terrorist attack on the USA was 9/11.
The participants were from Egypt and Saudi Arabia.
Neither of those countries are on Trump's newly-coined list of forbidden countries.
Why not?
I'm sure oil/investment interests, and the Secretary of State being an oil big-wig has absolutely nothing to do with it.
Quote: MrVThe worst radical Islamist terrorist attack on the USA was 9/11.
The participants were from Egypt and Saudi Arabia.
Neither of those countries are on Trump's newly-coined list of forbidden countries.
Why not?
THIS is the question that Trumpsters need to be asked over and over.
They can't admit the truth (his business ties to those countries). And they haven't come up with a good excuse yet like they usually try to....
Quote: beachbumbabsFact is, the numbers of Christians accepted has been in proportion to the number of them in the Syrian population. I'm guessing that was deliberate, as there should be no religious test for entering the US.
I watched CBS News tonight. I don't know how much it relates to your comment, but the newscaster did say that last year we admitted 12,500 Syrian refugees, 99% were Muslim, and 1% were Christian. I didn't know any of this. I just looked up the population of Syria and it says there are 403,036 Christians in a population of 2,860,411. I didn't know any of that either.
I don't suppose it had anything to do with the bias of the previous administration, is that possible?
Quote: bobbartop
I don't suppose it had anything to do with the bias of the previous administration, is that possible?
You mean our former Muslim president?
Quote: MathExtremistHe doesn't want to anger his stakeholders and business partners.
https://www.nydailynews.com/amp/news/politics/trump-muslim-ban-excludes-countries-linked-businesses-article-1.2957956
Incorrect.
There is only one country actually names in the EO; that is Syria and that part is about stopping the process of allowing 50,000 folks in from there.
The other countries are not mentioned at all by name. They were actually countries named in various processes by the Obama administration, In addition, the administration has not said that other countries could not be added; only that these are the countries on the list under President Obama, who I assume as no business interests in ANY of the countries listed or not listed.
Perhaps the previous administration considered everything, selected certain countries based on current threats, and picked them.
