Answers here will probably be predictable.

Its a good question. I can't figure it out. Most of the left is not heavily religious so that's not a major factor.

.......because the right is against unrestricted immigration?

cause the US is evil and the reason there are so many refugees in the first place. we must welcome them to atone for being a big, mean, bully.

I can't speak for Dems in general. In principle I am not against bringing in some refugees just from a humanitarian standpoint. Just as I was not against the bombing in Kosovo when ethnic cleansing was going on, or the attempt to ensure food supplies in Somalia back in the day. I understand the concern about bringing in lunatics, er, I mean, Islam radicals, without some vetting. It's only the arbitrariness of the countries listed that makes my antenna go up and wonder what's up with that.

More federal program$ and more new voter$ since they have lost much of the traditional democratic base through their party leadership idiocy.

Why is a major part of their platform the murder of the unborn? That is a question I have asked way before immigration was an issue. They have no souls is my guess.

The high moral status we grant to the idea of needing to bring refugees to this country is way overblown.

(03-16-2017 12:15 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  I can't speak for Dems in general. In principle I am not against bringing in some refugees just from a humanitarian standpoint. Just as I was not against the bombing in Kosovo when ethnic cleansing was going on, or the attempt to ensure food supplies in Somalia back in the day. I understand the concern about bringing in lunatics, er, I mean, Islam radicals, without some vetting. It's only the arbitrariness of the countries listed that makes my antenna go up and wonder what's up with that.

I'm with you right up to the last sentence. The six countries are anything but arbitrary.

Iran - "Death to America!" Yeah, let's vet those guys thoroughly.
Yemen - fired on a US warship not too many months ago. Also had over 100 detainees at Gitmo and several that have found their way back to the battlefield.
Syria - Obama half-heartedly tried to oust their leader. Knows he can't win a war against the US, but could probably sneak some bad guys in as refugees. Also full of ISIS fighters.
Libya - US overthrows leader, country descends into chaos, ISIS rushes in, Ambassador killed.
Somolia and Sudan - Both labeled national security threats under Obama. Terrorist groups that pledge allegiance to ISIS. Recent attacks on US soil carried out by solmoli and Sudanese refugees.

It's a 90 day ban so we can make sure we know who is really coming here. Trump's original ban would be half over with by now.

(03-16-2017 12:15 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  I can't speak for Dems in general. In principle I am not against bringing in some refugees just from a humanitarian standpoint. Just as I was not against the bombing in Kosovo when ethnic cleansing was going on, or the attempt to ensure food supplies in Somalia back in the day. I understand the concern about bringing in lunatics, er, I mean, Islam radicals, without some vetting. It's only the arbitrariness of the countries listed that makes my antenna go up and wonder what's up with that.

As I stated in the other thread if you actually read the EO you'll have a hard time using the leftist talking point that the countries are "arbitrary"

I think the intentions are good, but we shouldn't bring those who may be dependent on us until we get our business in order.

(03-16-2017 12:08 PM)LeFlâneur Wrote:  .......because the right is against unrestricted immigration?

Pretty much.

They are so defeated that radical Islam is one of the only allies they have left. That isn't hyperbole, either. Sharia law activist Linda Sarsour and convicted terrorist Rasmah Odeh are now the neo-feminist idols and thought leaders. bahahahahahaha

(03-16-2017 12:27 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(03-16-2017 12:15 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  I can't speak for Dems in general. In principle I am not against bringing in some refugees just from a humanitarian standpoint. Just as I was not against the bombing in Kosovo when ethnic cleansing was going on, or the attempt to ensure food supplies in Somalia back in the day. I understand the concern about bringing in lunatics, er, I mean, Islam radicals, without some vetting. It's only the arbitrariness of the countries listed that makes my antenna go up and wonder what's up with that.

I'm with you right up to the last sentence. The six countries are anything but arbitrary.

Iran - "Death to America!" Yeah, let's vet those guys thoroughly.
Yemen - fired on a US warship not too many months ago. Also had over 100 detainees at Gitmo and several that have found their way back to the battlefield.
Syria - Obama half-heartedly tried to oust their leader. Knows he can't win a war against the US, but could probably sneak some bad guys in as refugees. Also full of ISIS fighters.
Libya - US overthrows leader, country descends into chaos, ISIS rushes in, Ambassador killed.
Somolia and Sudan - Both labeled national security threats under Obama. Terrorist groups that pledge allegiance to ISIS. Recent attacks on US soil carried out by solmoli and Sudanese refugees.

It's a 90 day ban so we can make sure we know who is really coming here. Trump's original ban would be half over with by now.

Let me be clear, arbitrary in the sense of countries that are NOT on the list. Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Egypt, Pakistan, Afghanistan. There are many other countries that have people who could be just as big a threat but are not in the news as much - Indonesia, Sri Lanka, Nigeria, etc.

I don't care as much about a 90-day ban, just that I can't imagine it suddenly being lifted after 90 days.

(03-16-2017 12:29 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(03-16-2017 12:15 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  I can't speak for Dems in general. In principle I am not against bringing in some refugees just from a humanitarian standpoint. Just as I was not against the bombing in Kosovo when ethnic cleansing was going on, or the attempt to ensure food supplies in Somalia back in the day. I understand the concern about bringing in lunatics, er, I mean, Islam radicals, without some vetting. It's only the arbitrariness of the countries listed that makes my antenna go up and wonder what's up with that.

As I stated in the other thread if you actually read the EO you'll have a hard time using the leftist talking point that the countries are "arbitrary"

How does one include 6 countries and they don't include Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iraq, in particular. That is nothing but arbitrary, even if the countries actually chosen make sense in and of themselves.

(03-16-2017 12:17 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  More federal program$ and more new voter$ since they have lost much of the traditional democratic base through their party leadership idiocy.

Bingo. Viewed as potential cheap secure votes. Nothing more.

(03-16-2017 12:48 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(03-16-2017 12:29 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(03-16-2017 12:15 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  I can't speak for Dems in general. In principle I am not against bringing in some refugees just from a humanitarian standpoint. Just as I was not against the bombing in Kosovo when ethnic cleansing was going on, or the attempt to ensure food supplies in Somalia back in the day. I understand the concern about bringing in lunatics, er, I mean, Islam radicals, without some vetting. It's only the arbitrariness of the countries listed that makes my antenna go up and wonder what's up with that.

As I stated in the other thread if you actually read the EO you'll have a hard time using the leftist talking point that the countries are "arbitrary"

How does one include 6 countries and they don't include Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iraq, in particular. That is nothing but arbitrary, even if the countries actually chosen make sense in and of themselves.

Once again....read the EO and your questions are answered.

(03-16-2017 01:24 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(03-16-2017 12:48 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(03-16-2017 12:29 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(03-16-2017 12:15 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  I can't speak for Dems in general. In principle I am not against bringing in some refugees just from a humanitarian standpoint. Just as I was not against the bombing in Kosovo when ethnic cleansing was going on, or the attempt to ensure food supplies in Somalia back in the day. I understand the concern about bringing in lunatics, er, I mean, Islam radicals, without some vetting. It's only the arbitrariness of the countries listed that makes my antenna go up and wonder what's up with that.

As I stated in the other thread if you actually read the EO you'll have a hard time using the leftist talking point that the countries are "arbitrary"

How does one include 6 countries and they don't include Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iraq, in particular. That is nothing but arbitrary, even if the countries actually chosen make sense in and of themselves.

Once again....read the EO and your questions are answered.

I did read it. And it doesn't answer those questions.

(03-16-2017 01:35 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(03-16-2017 01:24 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(03-16-2017 12:48 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(03-16-2017 12:29 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(03-16-2017 12:15 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  I can't speak for Dems in general. In principle I am not against bringing in some refugees just from a humanitarian standpoint. Just as I was not against the bombing in Kosovo when ethnic cleansing was going on, or the attempt to ensure food supplies in Somalia back in the day. I understand the concern about bringing in lunatics, er, I mean, Islam radicals, without some vetting. It's only the arbitrariness of the countries listed that makes my antenna go up and wonder what's up with that.

As I stated in the other thread if you actually read the EO you'll have a hard time using the leftist talking point that the countries are "arbitrary"

How does one include 6 countries and they don't include Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iraq, in particular. That is nothing but arbitrary, even if the countries actually chosen make sense in and of themselves.

Once again....read the EO and your questions are answered.

I did read it. And it doesn't answer those questions.

Then I don't know what to tell you. It's spelled out in black and white why the six countries are identified.

(03-16-2017 01:38 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(03-16-2017 01:35 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(03-16-2017 01:24 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(03-16-2017 12:48 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(03-16-2017 12:29 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  As I stated in the other thread if you actually read the EO you'll have a hard time using the leftist talking point that the countries are "arbitrary"

How does one include 6 countries and they don't include Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iraq, in particular. That is nothing but arbitrary, even if the countries actually chosen make sense in and of themselves.

Once again....read the EO and your questions are answered.

I did read it. And it doesn't answer those questions.

Then I don't know what to tell you. It's spelled out in black and white why the six countries are identified.

Not convincingly, not even close. Of course, I'm not surprised. Just a bunch of generalities that don't say anything. It even mentions specifically the 19 guys from Saudi Arabia, without mentioning why that country wasn't one of them.

(03-16-2017 11:47 AM)Hood-rich Wrote:  Answers here will probably be predictable.

1) They need victims
2) we are talking about muslim refugees, and muslims are at the top of the PC SJW victim totem pole.