The Inauguration

I gotta say, sheepdog et al, you're working pretty hard to ignore context implementation andthe addition of three countries to call it Obama's list and a media storm over nothing cos Obama did it too. Obama didn't campaign for a Muslim ban (check the religious basis for refugee status in the order, that violates their constitution) and then make a fuss about making it happen.

As for not looking at the text... Smh did alright with heavy excerpts plus explanation they bought from the Times. I know you right wingers* don't like the ny times but the text is there to read if you don't like the analysis. Beyond that, the media need to sell papers and get clicks, reprinting legislation and presidential orders in full don't do that and it ain't necessary because the primary source isn't hidden.
http://www.smh.com.au/world/donald-trumps-immigration-order-explained-20...

As for the outrage, it isn't just the media jumping up and down it's world leaders, including conservative ones who weren't chums of Barack. So it's a pretty newsworthy situation. Especially when American green card holders are being cuffed and detained cos their Muslim. I don't think that happened on the regular with Obama's list.

*that is a joke sheepdog ;-)

Right wingers hey?

All along trump has said something along the lines of 'we're gonna put a ban on muslim imigration until we work out what the hell is going on'

Given the current geopolitical situation and 15 years of a war that's not a war, it's not an overly outrageous thing to say, because its got the usual trump escape clause "...until we work out what the hell is going on..."

As always with trump, this was his hyperbole busunessman routine starting position, that winds back considerably in reality as the deal closes.

Yep, its a joke saudi arabia isn't on the list, but, there is argument to saudi arabia being very different to the countries included.

Yes world leaders are spinning out. This is a huge change to their systems. But hey nothing lasts forever. Besides their systems seem to be failing many people, and that's what this is about.

A different analysis interprets the order not so abhorent

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/444370/donald-trump-refugee-execut...

BB, I think you need to spend time in the water.

Hey sypkan, I did have an asterisk against that!

Despite Trumps eminently reasonable qualifier of "until we work out what the hell is going on", a religious test violates the US constitution and everything they claim to stand for. It's the very first amendment they made. Now, being an amendment they can of course change it (thanks Jim Jefferies), but the valid criticism is that he's defining and treating people differently on the basis of their religion.

Not only does that violate the US constitution, but it is the domain of a certain kind of leader, the likes of which we have seen before. Glenn Beck and others on Fox News used to carry on endlessly about the democrats being like the nazis (Lewis Black did a great bit on the Daily Show where he declared, Glenn Beck had nazi tourettes). It was ridiculous but it didn't stop them. The backlash is not unexpected, and while maybe over the top not completely without basis.

Ok gotta go do something productive. Chat later maybe.

The US bannned Japanese and Germans during world war 2.

Because they were at war with them

If the US isn't at war with Islam , then what is the uniting factor between the US attacking Afghanistan , Pakistan , Syria , Iraq and maybe Iran ?

Got to be more nations to add to that list, but I don't have the mojo to go into it.

Just cause every one is in denial about the war against Islam , doesn't make it not so.

Sure it was about oil and perpetuating the war machine but maybe it was always about a little bit more than that ?

US is very religious.

Eureka! That's how it's done!

http://alternativefacts.com/

Shit Turkey , if it worked in a fictional movie released over 70 years ago it must be effective.

Of course it won't work on you cause you're too smart, but everyone else in the world is done for .

People haven't been thinking for themselves....they've been gaslighted !

Fanny by gaslight! Yew!

benski. how is it a muslim ban.? what about all the other muslim countries including afghanistan? sorry, i fail to see your point.....obama identified ALL seven countries. if the text is so plain to read then howcome the media created a fake shitstorm over these exact same 7 countries. and yes the SMH is one of the offenders. this was released after other articles had already called bullshit on it.....
http://www.smh.com.au/world/donald-trumps-muslim-ban-excludes-countries-...

Benski "I gotta say, sheepdog et al, you're working pretty hard to ignore context implementation andthe addition of three countries to call it Obama's list"

The addition of three countries to the list........... You did notice the date on my link right? Feb 18, 2016....... So there were 7 on the list in Feb 2016.... Who was president in Feb 2016?

Or am I missing something you aren't communicating clearly?

Blind boy..... have you ever admitted being wrong in your life? Ever? Or are you right 100% of the time?

bb , it was your birth date .!?
Congratulations twenty years later still going strong . Thank god for Whitlam ....oops , we're all agnostic in here

Without immigration Trump would have no Wives

Blowin, if it’s a war against Islam wouldn’t they be rounding up Muslims in America and putting them in internment camps, just like they did to the Japanese? I think that Americans are probably happy to ignore issues and invade a country if it’s a predominantly Muslim country. But if it were a war on Islam itself, then surely we’d see a lot more targeted treatment of Muslims in the US.

And remember it was NATO that led the bombings to save the Serbian Muslims in the late 90s. The same issues in the Middle East were going on then. We’d not long had the first gulf war, the embassy bombings in Khartoum and Nairobi had happened too. The same issues were there, yet the US went and saved a bunch of Muslims rather than letting them die. Not much good at war against someone if that’s the strategy.

If it were a real war on Islam, why stop at bombing those countries you listed? Why not go after Kuwait or Saudi or Indo or UAE or Yemen? There’s a bunch of Muslim countries that aren’t targets, and Saudi in particular is pushing Wahabism more than anyone. If it were a war on Islam then surely they’d be in the cross-hairs rather than in trade deals.

happyasS, there’s clearly a different context from what Obama put together though isn’t there? Obama spent his entire presidency calling for unity and tolerance and peace, love and bacon. Trump spent his entire campaign calling for a total ban on Muslims entering the country. And then hired a white supremacist as an advisor (subjective call there I realise), all the way to the white house. Then he implemented this. So we’ve got a very different context, one pres who lists 7 countries for security purposes but says we gotta love everyone and stay true to our values of not discriminating against religion.

Yes he bombed places they were at war and used drones and all that, so does every president. But he was consistent in message that the targets were targets because they were deemed to be threats to security (terrorists or otherwise) and not because they were Muslims. And let’s be honest, it’s pretty hard to argue with that. As I said above, if they were targeting Muslims they don’t have to bomb Pakistan they can take care of that business locally.

Trump hasn’t made that kind of distinction. Stop Muslims coming here he said, until we figure out what is going on (because the intelligence community has just been waiting for Trump to let them do that and show us what’s happening). I get that he invoked the same list as Obama, as sheepdog clarified for me, but there’s clearly a difference in implementation as well as the rhetoric.

Obama didn’t block and deport green card holders and existing permanent residents on arrival because they were Muslim or because they were from those seven countries. Probably most importantly in this debate, Obama didn’t say, we’ll only accept Christian refugees (I know Trump didn’t say exactly those words but “minority religion” implies Christians from the Middle East). And considering the vast majority of people killed by ISIS and whichever other terrorist group is going around that part of the world, are actually Muslim, it’s a pretty ordinary response from a country that claims to not judge people on the basis of religion. Those pricks are killing all and sundry not just Christians. But Trump won’t take them if they’re not a minority religion….if that’s not a Muslim ban, I don’t know what is.

Also, you asked “if the text is so plain to read then howcome the media created a fake shitstorm over these exact same 7 countries.” Indeed, how come? It’s a fair question. Maybe it’s because there are differences in what’s happening now with what happened when Obama made it happen. If there are no differences and it’s all a bogus media storm like you’re suggesting, then you gotta ask yourself, what did Trump actually do? Why would he even bother with an executive order if he’s just continuing Obama’s policy that is already in place? Or are you suggesting that he signed an order that basically said, “keep doing what Obama was doing with no change”?

benski. i am not a trump fan and while I agree with some of his policies, hes the wrong person for the job in the way he goes about implementing it. i was only pointing out how the media got the issue of the 7 countries so wrong. its bad enough that trump has a high risk of inflaming international tensions without media negligently portraying him even worse. i accept that its not the same as obama's policies and indeed a different context to what obama did, like you point out. still not convinced about it being a muslim ban "on purpose" as opposed to it looking that way on account of targetting 7 countries ruined by ISIS but also coincidentally muslim. in this respect i differ in opinion to some others. its easy to say well why not saudi arabi because obama was from saudi, and thats fair, but I also like to think/hope that our country is protected on the basis of current threats and not those from 15 years ago. and these are matters that we the public will never fully appreciate because we are not briefed matters of intelligence.

Sorry to drag this back up but I did a bit more reading about the difference between the two bans to try and understand why we didn't see the big response when Obama brought his in. A big part of the discussion has been that Trump is just following on with Obama's list and doing nothing different. But there are a few more differences and important contexts.

First up, given the context of it being Obama's list etc, there's a bit of doubt there. When it was brought in, the republicans controlled the houses so there was little Obama could get through if he wanted. He relied on executive orders rather than legislation for several things through that time. So it's fair to say that the piece of legislation that kicked off the additional scrutiny to the given middle eastern nations, the Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015, had the approval of the republicans and Obama signed it in. Fair enough, Obama agreed to it.

But in actual fact, the repubs packaged it for him by rolling it up as part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act 2016. That's the bill that funds the government. I recall they did that kind of thing a lot when I was living in the US, a controversial bill would be negotiated into another one that was unrelated but uncontroversial.
EDIT for text:

"the President signed into law the Consolidated Appropriations Act 2016, which includes the Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015 (the Act). The Act, among other things, establishes new eligibility requirements for travel under the VWP. These new eligibility requirements do not bar travel to the United States. Instead, a traveler who does not meet the requirements must obtain a visa for travel to the United States, which generally includes an in-person interview at a U.S. Embassy or Consulate."
https://www.cbp.gov/travel/international-visitors/visa-waiver-program/vi...

That means that if Obama wanted to veto the bill requiring additional vetting, he'd have to veto the funding of the government, which leads to another government shut down. Now he's not gonna do that over a fairly uncontroversial bill (it required an additional screening of people from those countries, not a total ban), but if he didn't like it, he wasn't really able to do much about it. So...to suggest it's Obama's list, is misleading because the bill was devised by the repubs in a way he'd have little chance in stopping it.

The second thing is that it wasn't a total ban on travel like this one is. It was extra screening. Very different.

The third thing is that it was legislation not an exec order. Much less controversial, understandably, because while there might have been a bit of horse trading etc, it was passed by the government not one person.

And the fourth thing, is it was devised with input from the relevant departments (DHS etc), whereas Trump's blanket ban was apparently not (evidenced by the issues of implementation that began from its roll out).

So yeah, I think it's pretty reasonable that there's been the hullabaloo about it because it's very very different from anything "Obama did" and very different from the initial bill, which Obama didn't have much say in anyway.

All very good facts, Benski... But America deals in alternative facts now.... And my simple point is that Trump will contort to suit, which he is... You once said you know a bit about the "rust belt folk"..... Your informative post would be "blah blah blah" to them.... It'd be fake news....
To them , it's simply "Trump finishing something Obama started"...

I've basically covered "why" the USA ended up with Trump... "How" they ended up with trump.... The left leaning media is also complicit.... (odd that in our country the media leans to the right, aye).

But i'll highlight 2 more things. One is an intersting post by an interesting writer, Brendan O'Neill, someone I agree and disagree with every time he opens his mouth;

The second is in regards to the hypocrisy of the supposed left, the media, hollywood etc, that has been sending 1/2 of america mad for ages.... (note the use of the word "aliens"... Note the standing ovation.... Note the lack of outrage back then.. Democrats say it - good.... Trump says it - bad)

BTW, Benski, i in NO WAY have ever endorsed Trump.... I'm just pointing out how we ended up with Trump.

BB, I dont agree with everything on O'Neill's list.... But he has a very valid point... The point is - leave people the fuck alone!!! get out of my diet... Get out of my ciggys.... Get out of my humour.... Stop exporting jobs to Asia....

Now in regards to smoking, I'm pretty sure it was Malcolm Frasers government that banned ciggy ads on tv and radio... But it was Bob Hawke who made tobacco tax linked to the cpi....
Also Shortens last alternative budget hinged on a new tobacco tax AND relying on addicts not to give up.

Fast food - up to the parents - everyone knows it aint good for you.

"removing so many restrictions on guns that mass murder is normal" - there are pro gun folk on both sides in the USA.. It's a USA "thing"...

denying climate change - exactly what O'Niell said - calling people names - denier etc.

denying evolution - lots of bible freaks on both sides

undermining every attempt to create a fair distribution of national income - yeah.... For sure.... Probably your best point... Probably the only point you need...

You could've mentioned the normalization of going to war, which has drained trillions from the usa .
The pandering to insurance companies and denying everyday americans easy access to health.
I could go on lol

Sheepdog, I hear what you're saying about Trump and stuff. But on your point (and not the rust belt peeps) the trouble with the comparison of Bill and Trump is that you're ignoring context and rhetoric again. The dems have beenn calling for immigration reform for ever as well. They just want a different version (ie some form of amnesty for some of the illegal immigrants) and Trump wants full deportation for all. Maybe. Not sure. Changed so often.

All sides recognise the problem and all sides regularly discuss it openly. Regularly. It's not surprising, they have little control of their borders. But to equate what ol' Bill is saying there with Trumps rhetoric is a bit disingenuous. Trump said he is going to round them up and deport them no matter what. Ignoring the fact that for many of them, their kids are Americans and are considered as such by law, because they were born there. I accept that it's a bit of a long bow to call that racist in and of itself (it might be, but we don't know the true motivation) but to suggest the Dems position is equally harsh (when they want amnesty for peeps with kids born in the US and then a bigger effort on closing the border) is a bit silly.

As for standing ovations, that's the state of the union, there's about one a minute for every one because the audience is stacked with a cheer squad.

As for O'Neill, I'm too much of a sanctimonious twat to read his stuff. I genuinely think he'd be worth reading and hearing from if he was half as intellectually honest as he demands others be. I get the point he's making, it's not some earth shattering observation that no one else thought of, but it's full of his usual self-excused generalisations and straw men. He's too much of a polemicist for me. But yeah, I do get the point and totally agree that all of that is why, it just shits me that he doesn't do anything to dispell that half of those things are bollocks, because it suits his own agenda.

blindboy, I haven't read that book but I'm not much of a reader. I get too drawn into stuff and tire out. So my reading for fun is pretty limited to stuff like swellnet.

Just following up on O'Neill. As I said I do get his point but I don't buy that it's one sided. Those responses that he decries didn't emerge in a vacuum. There are islamaphobic elements to the way some on the right criticise islam or lump in the acts of islamic extremists as acts of muslims. Not all but sometimes. Remember it was the left who were pushing an anti-taliban message and for something to be done about them well before 9/11. But the criticism was of the taliban and the problems of women's rights, with a clear distinction of the free will of many muslims to live their own way.

We have O'Neill saying leave me to make my own decisions, but plenty on the right want to ban the burqua. Let me choose my diet but let me choose your clothing. There's so many sides to all of this that O'Neil isn't ever particularly helpful to the discussion.

Anyway, all of that said....I listened to an absolutely excellent talk on ABC last week, from a gay marriage campaigner from Ireland that is extremely relevant to this discussion. As I was listening I was thinking, shit I have to post this to the political crew on swellnet. I think it will really jive with many here...It's an hour long but the talk is 20-30 mins.

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/bigideas/marriage-equality-...

"The pandering to insurance companies and denying everyday americans easy access to health."

That's why they want to ban big soft drinks, cos it messes with the health system when everyone's a porker getting charged shedloads for healthcare ;-)

Benski, banning soft drinks .... no one is forcing people to drink this sweet water. As a surfer, we should be more concerned about plastic bottles in the ocean - that we should be able to fix with some clever science.

"As a surfer, we should be more concerned about plastic bottles in the ocean..." Oh so now you want to decide for me what I should be concerned about? Typical right whingers wanting to decide for other people what they should think!

Seriously though, of course no one is forced, which is in large part why it's a fairly stupid idea. The connection to Sheepdog's health care issue is just for a chuckle, though it is a real and potentially valid argument used in favour of that kind of approach (we all pay more for healthcare, no matter the system, when the average state of wellbeing declines).

In any case the super-size ban didn't go beyond New York City anyway so hardly worth discussing in this context, but O'Neill will have his straw men.

"Because you branded people who oppose gay marriage ‘homophobic’, and people unsure about immigration ‘racist’. Because you turned ‘white man’ from a description into an insult. Because you used slurs like ‘denier’ and ‘dangerous’ against anyone who doesn’t share your eco-pieties. Because you treated dissent as hate speech and criticism of Obama as extremism. Because you policed people’s language, rubbished their parenting skills, took the piss out of their beliefs.

Hooray for free speech, eh?

Yes, Stu.... Hooray for free speech..... Were your feelings hurt reading that post?

Yes, my feelings and my hypocrisy antennae which is twitching like craaaazy.

Benski, I maybe missing your riddles. I read that you were in favour of the soft drink ban. Not sure about your 'right whingers' - a bit sanctimonious maybe. Certainly not 'forcing' the plastic idea. Not many think about the plastics.

No riddles, I'm either talking straight or making a lame joke. "I read that you were in favour of the soft drink ban." No worries, I was wrote why "they" wanted to ban them by way of explanation, not that I wanted to.

The right whingers thing was a joke, which was why I started the next sentence with "seriously though..." I thought the faux-outrage would be obvious but I'm starting to see why Sheepdog is so heavy handed with his bloody emoticons! ;-) :-)

" I thought the faux-outrage would be obvious but I'm starting to see why Sheepdog is so heavy handed with his bloody emoticons! ;-) :-)"

bahahahahahahaha...... I've actually laid off them a bit, Benski....
But just for you :/ :) ;P :o :p

That's a great read. Always loved PJ O'Rourke's books .

Yes, a good effort in our current environment. Not easy when so many just don't want to accept being 'elitists'. (Prof Simmons alluded to this in her Aus Day speech). I'm not sure about Trump joining the 'elite'. He is no populists nor wiseacre. Would say people are not fearful but frustrated but then the author has cleverly picked key historical points to present his thoughts.