The Trump Card...
- Thread starter muttly
- Start date
I agree with the idea it wasn't planned well. Sadly that's our government. This one, ocare, the list of badly executed ideas goes on and on. What does bug me is it keeps getting referred to as a ban when it's really more of a temporary suspension. But thing that description doesn't work as well for those wanting to make a moutain out of a molehill.
We, and the government, are still learning the details of Obamacare. LOL
Right now we have the media and Sean Spicer fighting over the use of the word "ban." In the media's defense, Trump himself used the word in a Tweet. And even Spicer has called it "a 90 day ban." Now Spicer is calling it "extreme vetting" but there's really no vetting going on when there's a complete stop for immigrants (from those 7 countries). The only vetting that's going on are for those (US citizens and non-citizen permanent residents alike) traveling into the US from those 7 countries. The Affordable Care Act is known as Obamacare, and this is gonna be known as a ban.
I really don't have a problem with the term ban, since that's really what it is, whether it's permanent or temporary. The problem is the media seems to have a serious need to give it every adjective they can think of except "immigrant." They want to call it a travel ban, a Muslim ban, even a migrant ban. But none of those are accurate, much less true.
What I've read is 90-120 suspension of travel and Syria is indefinite suspension
Right. It's a 90 day travel ban from those 7 countries, except for green card holders and US citizens (but they should expect some extra questioning). The order also suspends all refugee admission for 120 days (except for those who are already cleared for entry). And suspends until further notice all refugees from Syria.
CNN feels Steve Bannon isn't being fairly and properly demonized. They dug up a radio interview from 2010 where Bannon was criticizing Junior Bush for calling Islam a religion of peace.
"Islam is not a religion of peace. Islam is a religion of submission. Islam means submission."
Further hammering Bush, he said, "I mean, the whole thing is just, he is the epitome, he's a Republican version--not a conservative--he's a Republican establishment, country club version of the Clintons. That's all they are. It's the baby boomer, narcissistic, he wants to feel loved."
He's right about Islam, of course. CNN, with their on-the-spot breaking news reporting, inserts a little FAKE NEWS to counter that, to make him look like a bigoted idiot.
"The Arabic root of the word Islam means "peace.""
That's not true. Not even a little bit. It comes from the root word "aslama", which means "to surrender" or "resign oneself". Islam is usually translated as "submission"; i.e., submission of desires to the will of God. The Arabic word for peace is "salaam." While Islam and Salaam have the same root word (aslama), they do not mean the same thing, and are not interchangeable at all.
Islam is absolutely not a religion of peace. Neither is Christianity. All you have to do is read the Quran and the Bible to see that. No amount of protest that either one of them is a religion of peace is going to change the texts. There is only one religion of peace - Jainism.
Jainism is an ancient religion from India that teaches that the way to liberation and bliss is to live a life of harmlessness and renunciation. The central tenet is non-violence and respect towards all living beings. The more radical a Muslim or a Christian gets, the more they lean towards violence. The more radical a Jainist gets, more passive they get and the less likely they are to even step on an ant or swat at a mosquito.
"Islam is not a religion of peace. Islam is a religion of submission. Islam means submission."
Further hammering Bush, he said, "I mean, the whole thing is just, he is the epitome, he's a Republican version--not a conservative--he's a Republican establishment, country club version of the Clintons. That's all they are. It's the baby boomer, narcissistic, he wants to feel loved."
He's right about Islam, of course. CNN, with their on-the-spot breaking news reporting, inserts a little FAKE NEWS to counter that, to make him look like a bigoted idiot.
"The Arabic root of the word Islam means "peace.""
That's not true. Not even a little bit. It comes from the root word "aslama", which means "to surrender" or "resign oneself". Islam is usually translated as "submission"; i.e., submission of desires to the will of God. The Arabic word for peace is "salaam." While Islam and Salaam have the same root word (aslama), they do not mean the same thing, and are not interchangeable at all.
Islam is absolutely not a religion of peace. Neither is Christianity. All you have to do is read the Quran and the Bible to see that. No amount of protest that either one of them is a religion of peace is going to change the texts. There is only one religion of peace - Jainism.
Jainism is an ancient religion from India that teaches that the way to liberation and bliss is to live a life of harmlessness and renunciation. The central tenet is non-violence and respect towards all living beings. The more radical a Muslim or a Christian gets, the more they lean towards violence. The more radical a Jainist gets, more passive they get and the less likely they are to even step on an ant or swat at a mosquito.
I believe it may have been planned well but the execution was problematic. The idea was to enact the "ban" without prior warning to prevent a crush of people from trying to enter the country. Short notice to TSA and other security people, coupled with them dealing with airport protesters, resulted in much of the confusion.
I have yet to hear from the MSM that protests at many of the country's large airports may have caused problems for the TSA. There are news reports of how the "ban" was botched and there are new reports of sympathetic, concerned citizens demonstrating inside airports. It's like these are two separate stories that are unrelated.
Not only for the TSA, but for the regular traveling public. Many people at LAX, for example, had to lug children and luggage for up to 2 miles to get to terminals, many of them missing their flights.
OK, yeah, I realize that's a very first world problem and it doesn't really compare to someone fleeing Aleppo, but the only reason that problem existed was because of libtard protesters who couldn't care less how much they inconvenienced anybody else. In fact, many of those who were interviewed by the news media rejoiced in it.
At 9PM, an hour after the Supreme Court nomination announcement, Nancy Pelosi was on a CNN Town Hall with Jake Tapper. On the heels of the announcement, that was the first thing Tapper asked her about. Of course, she immediately said he was a hostile nominee, and listed a whole host of reason why, all of them BS. He ruled with Hobby Lobby, so he's against women's productive rights. He ruled against a class action lawsuit, so he's on the side of big business and Wall Street. Never mind that all he did was rule according to established legal precedent in those and the other things she mentioned, the fact is that he's not a liberal activist judge, so he's hostile.
But beyond that, and the real reason for this post, we've known for a week that Pelosi was going to be on this CNN Town Hall. Trump moved up his announcement to Tuesday, from Thursday, because, according to Nancy Pelosi, Trump found out she was going to be on the Town Hall on Tuesday, and moved up his announcement in order to upstage her.
Yep. That's what she said. You think the mainstream media will focus on that, or even report it?
But beyond that, and the real reason for this post, we've known for a week that Pelosi was going to be on this CNN Town Hall. Trump moved up his announcement to Tuesday, from Thursday, because, according to Nancy Pelosi, Trump found out she was going to be on the Town Hall on Tuesday, and moved up his announcement in order to upstage her.
Yep. That's what she said. You think the mainstream media will focus on that, or even report it?
Budweiser's 2017 Super Bowl ad goes full blown social justice warrior.
It's the story, in 60 seconds, of Adolphus Busch, when he emigrated to America in the 1850s. He's fleeing hatred and violence, and when he first arrives in America he's told to go back home, that he's not wanted here. He perseveres, traveling along side slaves and assorted refugees, until he finally arrives in St Louis, where they happily welcome him. He meets the man who will become his brewing partner, and the rest is history. Watch close, and you'll see the stamp, where he gets his Immigration ID Card, where he's a legal immigrant.
Ricardo Marques, vice president and executive for the Budweiser brand in the U.S., says the company’s pro-immigration Super Bowl ad is “particularly relevant today, you know, because of Trump's immigration ban. He insists the ad is not political, even saying they don't get political (despite a series of Bud Light ads last year with Seth Rogan and Chuck Schumer's niece where they sold beer wrapped up in the warm and cozy blanket of women's rights issues). They cancelled that ad after they received tons of negative blowback and their sales dropped.
After saying the ad is "particularly relevant today," he then later goes on to say, "There’s really no correlation with anything else that’s happening in the country." So, uhm, yeah. Juuust a coincidence, I guess.
This ad is already getting its fair share of negative blowback online.
It's the story, in 60 seconds, of Adolphus Busch, when he emigrated to America in the 1850s. He's fleeing hatred and violence, and when he first arrives in America he's told to go back home, that he's not wanted here. He perseveres, traveling along side slaves and assorted refugees, until he finally arrives in St Louis, where they happily welcome him. He meets the man who will become his brewing partner, and the rest is history. Watch close, and you'll see the stamp, where he gets his Immigration ID Card, where he's a legal immigrant.
Ricardo Marques, vice president and executive for the Budweiser brand in the U.S., says the company’s pro-immigration Super Bowl ad is “particularly relevant today, you know, because of Trump's immigration ban. He insists the ad is not political, even saying they don't get political (despite a series of Bud Light ads last year with Seth Rogan and Chuck Schumer's niece where they sold beer wrapped up in the warm and cozy blanket of women's rights issues). They cancelled that ad after they received tons of negative blowback and their sales dropped.
After saying the ad is "particularly relevant today," he then later goes on to say, "There’s really no correlation with anything else that’s happening in the country." So, uhm, yeah. Juuust a coincidence, I guess.
This ad is already getting its fair share of negative blowback online.
The whole Super Bowl is going to be a full blown social justice experience, with ads like that, Trump hater Lady Gaga's halftime show, and the crew of the play Hamilton singing aIso. I wouldn't doubt they sneak in some type of social justice message as well.
Last edited:
Doesn't really belong here since it's not about Trump. However, plenty of the protests against Trump have been about the Gender Pay Gap. Audi also goes full-on SJW in their Super Bowl ad.
I should probably mention the fact that the U.S. has legally required men and women be paid the same wages for the same work for more than 50 years, which kind of blows the whole "gender pay gap" myth out of the water. But I digress, since that doesn't really matter.
I should probably mention the fact that the U.S. has legally required men and women be paid the same wages for the same work for more than 50 years, which kind of blows the whole "gender pay gap" myth out of the water. But I digress, since that doesn't really matter.