Isuck, It doesnt make it any more or less OK. It brings to light the hypocrisy of the media's coverage of it. And it brings to light the masses' blind following of mass media's spun coverage. If you believe this has anything to do with banning a religion you owe it to yourselfe to step back and attempt to understand the bigger picture. Everything in politics is done for one reason; Power. If someone is trying to convince you otherwise, they are either misinformed or intentionally misleading you.
deleted
· 7 years ago
Who gives a shit about some dumb cunts at cnn who make dollars off this. There are families who are not united right now
If you care about the wellbeing of any people you should defenatly care about the dumb cunts at CNN. The people in power know full well that the only thing capable of taking their power away is if the majority of the citizens become aware and act on it. So controlling public perception means everything to washington. If you were the power in washington and wanted to stay in power, how would you go about controlling popular perception?? Control the media, control perception. In conclusion, if you want the government to look out for the best interests of the people you should sure as hell be aware of who's pulling the strings on the puppets at CNN.
My friends cousins who live in dallas were visiting their grandpa here in south africa, they were forced to fly back here the day they flew. Trump honestly fucked up on this ban, anyone defending it are fucking idiots.
Isuck, are you suggesting that the criteria that determins who our government should closely vet should be their original country of origin and not their current one?
1
deleted
· 7 years ago
I dont think you should ban anybody at all. I think you should ban certain people, by doing background checks when they apply.
That's what we're trying to figure out. There is a giant disconnect between how background checks should be done and how they are done. There was to be a temporary stay until a new process could be written and implemented, now it has devolved into a dick measuring contest because a bunch of assholes don't realize that not one single solitary non-citizen has the right to enter this country. Our border is to be respected. Our border should be temporarily closed while we set new security protocols in place to keep out those who would harm us. If you don't like it, stay the fuck out.
Isuck, your last comment is a three way contradiction. I agree unequivocally that people shouldnt be judged from their religion. But you supported, in two sentances, the exact same thing thats happening with that exsecutive order. It's impossible to simultaneously 'not ban anybody' and 'only ban certain people' at the same time. Furthermore what do you mean by "when they apply"?
Lol... Americans are so stupid. I am a Muslim in a Muslim country and here we don't want "Muslims" who go around using the religion incorrectly and it's hard to distinguish good people from the bad ... sometimes you aren't even sure if a person under a burka is a female and this is a reality... go ahead have them and fight for their rights ... I rather they bomb you than me
After seven years and billions of waisted taxpayer dollars, Obama said that Obamacare was 'like a starter house' and liberals across the country accepted that explanation. But a few people wait an extra hour in an airport and the same people start comparing Trump to Hitler and Nixon....... that seems about right. What's scarier is the enormous amount of people who are believing all the media's Trump bashing as both accurate and a representation of popular belief.
Obamacare is getting people covered and saving lives. It was needed. The travel ban did nothing. Omar Mateen (orlando guy) was born in the US and he was the most recent mass shooting. (Yes, I know, he was Muslim and all that, but that doesn't have to do with the travel ban)
Assuming you're correct about the 24M people loosing their care: This wouldnt be a concern if obamacare was never thrust down our throats in the first place. Obama flat out lied about what obamacare was going to be so that he could gain enough support to get turn it into law. With this law, the federal government assumed distribution of all healthcare, then by a slight of hand in the supreme court they labeled it a tax to avoid unconstitutionality so that they could financially punish people who didnt sign up. Now a huge chunk of the young&healthy, who are crucial for the function of any healthcare plan, are opting to pay the "tax" instead of signing up because it's financially advantages for then to do so. I never claimed that Obama said it's a failure, I said that he knows that it is. An ego of his sizes wouldnt ever allow him to admit it. Obamacare is his legacy, the closest he'll ever come to admitting it's failure is likening it to a starter home after 7 years.
I apologize in advance for the following stereotype: Being liberal is easy because all you have to do is be compassionate and understanding. Wheather or not insurance companies should accept and cover preexisting conditions is an easy decision for a liberal because all you have to do is imagine a person suffering and then imagine the big mean insurance company that should pay to help them. Unfortunately there is a cold hard reality called human nature. Given the fact that young & healthy people now know that any insurance company has to pay for anything preexisting, they will simply not carry insurance until they need it. Obviously that negates the entire purpose and in the end everyone's rates go up....way up because they lost thw masses of healthy contributors who draw very little payment. Hope as much as you like, compassion and understanding alone will not work out in the end. Someone is always there to take advantage.
I know you didn't mention compassion and understanding, I mentioned them in order to explain why sometimes the right decisions seems wrong if you don't understand the big picture. It's great for poorer people pay less, the problem is how much less that lead to the unsastainabillty. If theres a greater quality of life to be had by "being poor" you'll eventually find people trying to become "poor" so they too can have that lifestyle because it's better than their current one. You would have effectively created a world that rewards people more for contributing less. The more people who make the move, the worse it gets. This example is of course on a grand scale but the principle still applies to healthcare.
Think of it in terms of people pulling a wagon. You want to get all the people who are incapable helping pull an opportunity to ride because humans are compassionate and understanding. But the pullers have to get some bennefits the riders cannot have. If you create a system where the riders share the same benefits as the pullers theres no reason for the pullers to continue pulling. So one by one the pullers jump in the wagon. And one by one the wagon gets harder and harder for the remaining pullers to pull and the appeal to ride keeps growing. So even though compassion and understanding make us want to universally give riders the same quality of life as everyone else, we're digging our own graves and in the end everyone looses (especially people who should be riders).
No. no no no. The quality of healthcare isn't going up the poorer you get. Your quality of life isn't going up as you get poorer. It will still suck, don't worry about that. It's just in my belief, healthcare should be a universal right. So instead of making poor people spend their last dollar on it, help them out a little.
I never said the quality was higher as you get poorer. But if the quality stays the same and the price goes down, the value certainly goes up. I'm simply explaining risk/reward on a grand scale. People will ALWAYS act according to how their rewarded and measured. So its not hard to deduce what will happen as your society moves toward a system that rewards everyone equally.
-
Speech, choice of religion, the right to defend yourselfe, the right to try to become a doctor or healthcare provider..these are all rights. Healthcare is a service like auto repair or drycleaning. Healthcare is not a right nor can it ever become one. A right is something all people have. You can not guarantee healthcare because healthcare is just people. If nobody wants to become a doctor you loose your ability to deliver your "right", unless of corse you plan on forcing people into professions but that sounds like true rights violations.
But healthcare saves lives, unlike auto repair. You have the right to be alive. Also, people will not become poorer just to save money on healthcare. There are so many other ways it's better to be rich other than healthcare. (Nice car, nice house, education for kids, etc.)
Auto repair indeed saves lived. So do bridge builders, road workers, engineers, the list goes on and on. And no you dont have the right to be alive, just ask anyone with a terminal disease. Like i said a few posts back, being compassionate is easy. Of course i would love a world where everyone had great healthcare, plenty of food, a warm safe place to sleep, free of crime, free of hate, free of racism, etc etc. But theres an enormous difference between whats ideal and what's possible. Striving to make everyone equal doesn't leave much room for exceptionalism.
No. I'm just talking about healthcare. You do have the right to be alive. The ideals that our country was built on were life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Life is the first one. Sure, people with a terminal disease are physically incapable of having a long life, but what if said disease is treatable? Then something like Obamacare would help the person.
You have a right to live your life as of your choosing as long as it's within the law. You do NOT have the right for someone to take care of you (wheather that help is from a doctor or from financial aid from fellow citizens).
.
Where would a lifelong two-pack-per-day smoker who is dying from lung cancer at the age of 40 fall into your right to life? They certanly have the right to smoke as much as they like. Do they also have a right to healthcare thats paid for by people who live a healthy/responsable lifestyle? Wouldnt forcing the healthy people to pay four other peoples bad decisions obstruct healthy peoples right to the pursuit of happyness?
Exactly correct. Again, if you look to compassion for the answer it's an easy choice: help everybody. But the reality is that if you take consequences away from bad behavior people will do more bad behavior. It's the fundimental concept of laws and punishments. Generally speaking, people are simple and predictable. It's the same reason good parents cannot be friends. The only sustainable system is one of personal accountability. Every other system will be taken advantage of.....ALWAYS.
The problem faced right now is oeopke refusing coverage believing that they are healthy and then purchasing coverage after they find out they are not. That's bullshit.
I commented my solution on here a dozen times. There should be no subsidy for privately purchased insurance. The money wasted on subsidies would be better spent patching the MedicarE and MedicaiD systems that already exist for the Elderly and Destitute. As these programs could be improved (streamlined and better funded) more and more baby boomers will be moving onto Medicare. Eventually there will be a single payer system (that will employ many of those already in the insurance industry) and it will be easier to move to this system if the two Ms already brought costs under control and enrolled a third of the population.
The aca is a mandate to purchase private insurance or be fined. The govt pays a portion for those that cannot afford insurance. It is underfunded and inneffecient. How is that like what I described? It will be terribly difficult to move from this mess to universal care, ever without a government takeover of a private industry which would cause a shitstorm like you've never seen before.
Medicaid is a "system for persons of all ages whose income and resources are insufficient to pay for health care," which getd its money from taxes.
Obamacare makes companies charge less for lower income families, and the companies get their extra money from taxes.
In one you are being FORCED to purchase a product from a private company with your own money. On behalf of low income forced purchasers the government takes tax dollars and gives them to a private company that they have decided you must purchase a product from. (Research crony capitalism) In the other model the tax dollars are spent directly on the healthcare of low income individuals cutting out a middleman. Now, medical costs have to be controlled and government employee pension plans have to be changed drastically before I will sign on to a single payer system, but once these are met we would spend a lot less than we do now.
What have you done! I read your link and have a couple problems. Snopes loves to write the claims in such a way that they can call anything mostly false. They use something to the effect of
.
CLAIM: "Obama stopped travel from Iraq for 6 months and the media did not report it!" Then they show that he did in fact block the visa that most travelers enter under, BUT the media did actually report it. Therefore part A is only 70% true and part B is 5% true so the average truthiness of the entire story is 37.5% and therefore "Mostly False". These tricks are increasing and causing snopes to lose some credibility from people who read the entire article and not just the brightly colored graphic at the top.
"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." did you read the whole thing? Cause I'm pretty sure that this statement right here shows that it he didn't make a ban.
The United States Constitution is NOT an international treaty, it is designed only to protect this nation's citizens and legal residents. We are actively engaged in combat operations in some of the nation's on that list of countries that the Obama administration identified as terrorist hotbeds. The federal government's job, first and foremost, is to secure this nation's borders and protect her citizens from foreign threat. Tend of thousands are here with expired visas. Thousands are here as refugees. Until last week visa applicants were not required to interview with a customs and immigration agent, many were rubber stamped and red flags were ignored by Feds.
It's a 120 day moratorium until stricter vetting process can be enacted. If you have an open visa that is still valid you can still enter after a delay. We have had almost no issues here at the Canadian crossings all weekend. The people that have trouble will be those with expired visas and no visas.
Over 850 refugees are still being allowed in this week because they meet the hardship requirements and agents are back checking them right now. Every person detained this weekend has been back checked and released.
It's definitely not a travel ban because less than 200 of the 350,000 people who arrived from those 7 countries were delayed. It's clearly not a religious ban because of the 50 countries in the world that consist of primarily Muslim people, only these 7 that were chosen by the obama administration are being watched closer. This story has been enormously spun and blown out of proportion. Even Obama is part of the effort to move this story out of context because yesterday Obama's spokesperson said this: - “The president [Obama] fundamentally disagrees with the notion of discriminating against individuals because of their faith or religion,” a spokesman for Obama said. -
There are zero mentions of the words Islam or Muslim in the entire document. A former president releasing this statement at this time with an ovious false accusation of its purpose is absurd and pathetic.
Anyone who has an opinion of this executive order and hasnt read it is a hypocrit. The best case senario is that they would be able to loosely regurgitate someone else's opinion of an order they probably havent read either. Use the media to make yourselfe aware of situations but dig into them yourselfe for the truth!
Now the comments dissecting the ban to fuck
Learn to tell the difference between ILLEGAL immigrants and immigrants who have followed the laws of our country to be admitted to this country.
You're smart
-
Speech, choice of religion, the right to defend yourselfe, the right to try to become a doctor or healthcare provider..these are all rights. Healthcare is a service like auto repair or drycleaning. Healthcare is not a right nor can it ever become one. A right is something all people have. You can not guarantee healthcare because healthcare is just people. If nobody wants to become a doctor you loose your ability to deliver your "right", unless of corse you plan on forcing people into professions but that sounds like true rights violations.
.
Where would a lifelong two-pack-per-day smoker who is dying from lung cancer at the age of 40 fall into your right to life? They certanly have the right to smoke as much as they like. Do they also have a right to healthcare thats paid for by people who live a healthy/responsable lifestyle? Wouldnt forcing the healthy people to pay four other peoples bad decisions obstruct healthy peoples right to the pursuit of happyness?
Obamacare makes companies charge less for lower income families, and the companies get their extra money from taxes.
.
CLAIM: "Obama stopped travel from Iraq for 6 months and the media did not report it!" Then they show that he did in fact block the visa that most travelers enter under, BUT the media did actually report it. Therefore part A is only 70% true and part B is 5% true so the average truthiness of the entire story is 37.5% and therefore "Mostly False". These tricks are increasing and causing snopes to lose some credibility from people who read the entire article and not just the brightly colored graphic at the top.
Example above pokethebear
There are zero mentions of the words Islam or Muslim in the entire document. A former president releasing this statement at this time with an ovious false accusation of its purpose is absurd and pathetic.