Jump to content

LL condemn the recent Executive Order on Immigration


You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 1380 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Recommended Posts


sirhc DeSantis wrote:

Talked with some refugees today. We complained about the price of veg due to some rather unusual weather in Spain. I mean, equiv of 10 bucks for a lettuce!

Its the sort of thing we do, living next door to each other.

For us right now, avocados are hit hard. :matte-motes-big-grin-squint:

The world is wonderful  - when it comes to the guts of it, we all have the same joy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 160
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic


Aislin Ceawlin wrote:

 I can guarantee 
BilliJo
will never allow herself to be educated on the matter. 

and that is her own full right.

Who are you to tell her what he political opinion has to be?  Even the specialists are totally divided on the matter.

 

This is a forum, show the same respect for other opinions as you want for yours. If she is pro Trump, she is not alone... he got a majority in the elections, but most forget that .America wanted him... now do the same as you did with all others before him, accept and move on, in a few years you have a new chance...

Link to post
Share on other sites


Alwin Alcott wrote:


Aislin Ceawlin wrote:

 I can guarantee 
BilliJo
will never allow herself to be educated on the matter. 

and that is her own full right.

Who are you to tell her what he political opinion has to be?  Even the specialists are totally divided on the matter.

 

This is a forum, show the same respect for other opinions as you want for yours. If she is pro Trump, she is not alone... he got a majority in the elections, but most forget that .America wanted him... now do the same as you did with all others before him, accept and move on, in a few years you have a new chance...

While Donald Trump won a majority in the Electoral College, he didn't  get a majority in the elections.   Hillary Clinton won some 2.8 million more votes than did he.    So I don't think it's accurate to say that "America wanted him," particularly since about 42% of the eligible electorate didn't vote and thus didn't express an opinion either way.

Link to post
Share on other sites


BilliJo Aldrin wrote:

 

Thank you President Trump for putting America first.

:)


I agree.

 And I disagree with the stance of some in corporate America with regard to this issue.

As we (America) try to figure out our immigration problems and what to do about it I am sure many mistakes will be made.  It is in a difficult position we find ourselves. However, immigration needs to be addressed. I am sad but glad that President Trump is the 1st sitting President since the 9/11 attacks to address terrorism and immigration at the level he is doing so.    What shape immigration takes in the future U.S. will be dependent upon everyone's input not just the people who shout the loudest.  

 

Did I mention mistakes will be made?!  But we must figure out how to do this right.

Link to post
Share on other sites


Aislin Ceawlin wrote:

Innula, without even reading the following posts, I can guarantee 
BilliJo
will never allow herself to be educated on the matter. 

I guess it is you as well who will never allow yourself to be educated on this matter.  As with everything else in this forum you are the omnipotent word; the best educated; the most perfect person.  <smiles>  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Innula Zenovka wrote:

While Donald Trump won a majority in the Electoral College, he didn't  get a majority in the elections.   Hillary Clinton won some 2.8 million more votes than did he.    So I don't think it's accurate to say that "America wanted him," particularly since about 42% of the eligible electorate didn't vote and thus didn't express an opinion either way.

YES America wanted him because this is how the system works... deal with it.. you'r a bad loser if you now reject your own democratic system...this same happened a few times back with Al Gore if i'm not wrong...... and NOBODY complained than... come on get real. You lost.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I also think it is sad that LL decided to do this, but not for the same reasons that others are stating.

Before anyone goes making assumptions about me, my mother was an immigrant, and at 10 years old, I helped her become a citizen. I was a very curious child, always asking about my mother's country of birth, which was Korea. She instilled in me that I'm an American, and that her home country would never accept me as a korean. I've seen racism against me not only in Korea, but here in the states.

Now, back to LL's statement.....

It saddens me because our country continuously bombs many of the nations that are now on this ban list, yet, not once have we seen LL stand against these bombings of mostly innocent people. The whole reason the ban is in anyway needed is because we are bombing them. How about people stand against the bombing of these nations, instead of a stupid ban against immigration. 1 actually kills thousands, if not millions. The other simply inconveniences people. Me, I want the bombings to stop. I want real lives to be saved. Immigration bans, IMHO, take a back seat to the REAL evils that are going on in the world.

Link to post
Share on other sites


Alwin Alcott wrote:


Innula Zenovka wrote:

While Donald Trump won a majority in the Electoral College, he didn't  get a majority in the elections.   Hillary Clinton won some 2.8 million more votes than did he.    So I don't think it's accurate to say that "America wanted him," particularly since about 42% of the eligible electorate didn't vote and thus didn't express an opinion either way.

YES America wanted him because this is how the system works... deal with it.. you'r a bad loser if you now reject your own democratic system...this same happened a few times back with Al Gore if i'm not wrong...... and NOBODY complained than... come on get real. You lost.

Not my system.   I'm a Brit.   

In my country, as in the USA, it's perfectly possible -- indeed, it's usual -- for a government to be formed by a party who received less than 50% of the total votes cast, and it's also quite possible (though unusual) for a government to be formed by a party other than the one that received the most votes.

No one would question the legitmacy oftsuch a  government, since they won according to the rules, and I don't question the legitmacy of the current US administration.

What I do question, though, is how the runner-up in a poll in which only 58% of the eligable electorate voted can accurately be described as the candidate who "the country wanted" as opposed to being "the candidate who won the election".     He won only about 48% of the total votes cast, and only 27% of the total eligable electorate voted for him.  

That cannot, to my mind, sensibly be described as a convincing popular endorsement, though he certainly won the election.

Link to post
Share on other sites


Innula Zenovka wrote:


Alwin Alcott wrote:

 

What I do question, though, is how the runner-up in a poll in which only 58% of the eligable electorate voted can accurately be described as the candidate who "the country wanted" as opposed to being "the candidate who won the election".
   
He won only about 48% of the total votes cast, and only 27% of the total eligable electorate voted for him
.  

That cannot, to my mind, sensibly be described as a convincing popular endorsement, though he certainly won the election.

It was the same thing we said when President Clinton won, and his numbers were way lower - like ~42%   It is the same term applied with any winner.  The country certainly did not NOT want him either.  

Link to post
Share on other sites


DejaHo wrote:


Innula Zenovka wrote:


Alwin Alcott wrote:

 

What I do question, though, is how the runner-up in a poll in which only 58% of the eligable electorate voted can accurately be described as the candidate who "the country wanted" as opposed to being "the candidate who won the election".
   
He won only about 48% of the total votes cast, and only 27% of the total eligable electorate voted for him
.  

That cannot, to my mind, sensibly be described as a convincing popular endorsement, though he certainly won the election.

It was the same thing we said when President Clinton won, and his numbers were way lower - like ~42%   It is the same term applied with any winner.  The country certainly did not NOT want him either.  

I agree.   "I won the election" does not necessarily mean "The electorate are behind me."     That's all I'm saying.

Successful politicians, I think, try to govern with this in mind-- that they don't necessarily enjoy public support for any particular measure and they often need to take the country as a whole with them.

And, of course, the amount of popular support someone enjoys has nothing to do with how well-considered (or lawful) his policies are.

Link to post
Share on other sites


Alwin Alcott wrote:


Innula Zenovka wrote:

While Donald Trump won a majority in the Electoral College, he didn't  get a majority in the elections.   Hillary Clinton won some 2.8 million more votes than did he.    So I don't think it's accurate to say that "America wanted him," particularly since about 42% of the eligible electorate didn't vote and thus didn't express an opinion either way.

YES America wanted him because this is how the system works... deal with it.. you'r a bad loser if you now reject your own democratic system...this same happened a few times back with Al Gore if i'm not wrong...... and NOBODY complained than... come on get real. You lost.

Hitler's party got only 30% or so of the vote (He had a notable amount, but also notably a minority - and it's been 20+ years since I looked this up), formed a coalition, and then took control. People just said "well that's the system, it's fair, so we will just shut up and take it."

- Just accepting a facist when they rise to power is not exactly a good idea.

Far from being a Godwin moment, Trump's rhetorical style, policy ideas, use of race and racism as a way to consolidate power, incurious lack of intellect, and 'rule by dictatorial fiat' with his decrees are a very good match to a less competant version of Hitler.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well Innula what do you think...are we going to be able to prevent the Holocaust 2?
Reality has a bit of an ominous feel to it atm, especially when casting awareness out to the big picture.

Link to post
Share on other sites


Alwin Alcott wrote:


Innula Zenovka wrote:

While Donald Trump won a majority in the Electoral College, he didn't  get a majority in the elections.   Hillary Clinton won some 2.8 million more votes than did he.    So I don't think it's accurate to say that "America wanted him," particularly since about 42% of the eligible electorate didn't vote and thus didn't express an opinion either way.

YES America wanted him because this is how the system works... deal with it.. you'r a bad loser if you now reject your own democratic system...this same happened a few times back with Al Gore if i'm not wrong...... and NOBODY complained than... come on get real. You lost.

On the contrary a lot of people complained when Bush was declared president over Gore, despite winning the popular vote, and possibly Florida too, thus the electorial vote.  Bush became president only because the courts ruled he was, not because he won Florida.  We'll never know if he did or not because the courts ordered a stop to the recount. 

American's have a right to complain even though this is how the system works.  It's called free speech.  I remember when the Republicans lost back in 2008 that they complained and the Republicans in Congress said that they would do everything in their power to vote NO to anything Obama proposed in order to derail his presidency. 

As far as Trump, a majority of Americans DIDN'T want him.  He only won the electorial college, which personally I feel is archaic and should be abolished.  I'm saying that as an independent too, not because I'm affliated with a particular party.

I'll stand up against any president that issues orders I feel are based on religious bigotry and hate and that is clearly unconstitutional as well as any order I think it just wrong.  Thankfully a federal court agreed and issued an injunction on Trumps immigration order that it specifically stated was now in effect nationwide. 

Link to post
Share on other sites


Luna Bliss wrote:

Well Innula what do you think...are we going to be able to prevent the Holocaust 2?

Reality has a bit of an ominous feel to it atm, especially when casting awareness out to the big picture.

Well, the Russian and Chinese governments will be pleased to see a diminution in American prestige, influence and economic power, so I think they can be trusted to be the adults in the room and quietly consolidate their gains for the next four years.    

Meanwhile,  I'm pretty sure that the US military and  the grown-ups in the White House and the cabinet will have put in place some safeguards similar to what Henry Kissinger is said to have set up towards the end of Richard Nixon's tenure in office -- apparently if instructions to launch a nuclear attack were received after business hours (and, therefore, when the President had likely been drinking), they should not be carried out without the authorisation of Kissinger or some other senior figure).

So I'm reasonably hopeful we'll survive the next four years.  Though I'm very thankful I don't live in either the USA or the Baltic states.

Link to post
Share on other sites


Innula Zenovka wrote:


Luna Bliss wrote:

Well Innula what do you think.

 
Though I'm very thankful I don't live in either the USA or the Baltic states.

Your loss.  I am grateful, thankful, and most of all enjoying the ride.  While alive I will live;  regardless of the religious/political zealot who wants to disturb my pursuit of life, liberty and happiness.   My life matters!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Medhue Simoni wrote:

The whole reason the ban is in anyway needed is because we are bombing them. 

What garbage. When have Iraq, Turkey, the Philippines, Indonesia, Spain, Bali or Pakistan ever 'bombed them'? All have been attacked though. Something to do with Islam being a regressive religion.

All you people slating Trump need to grow up and kick yourselves into touch. Do you think an Islamic Caliphate would allow you to come onto SL and dress how you want and play with sexbeds and adult SM sims? Do you think a Caliphate would allow you to do ANYTHING you currently take for granted? 

Link to post
Share on other sites


wolfshanty wrote:


Medhue Simoni wrote:

The whole reason the ban is in anyway needed is because we are bombing them. 

What garbage. When have Iraq, Turkey, the Philippines, Indonesia, Spain, Bali or Pakistan ever 'bombed them'? All have been attacked though. Something to do with Islam being a regressive religion.

All you people slating Trump need to grow up and kick yourselves into touch. Do you think an Islamic Caliphate would allow you to come onto SL and dress how you want and play with sexbeds and adult SM sims? Do you think a Caliphate would allow you to do ANYTHING you currently take for granted? 

Do you seriously think there's much danger of an Islamic Caliphate being established in the USA?   Seems to me about as realistic a possibility as North Korea launching a successful invasion and taking over there. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites


Innula Zenovka wrote:

 

Do you seriously think there's much danger of an Islamic Caliphate being established in the USA?
  Seems to me about as realistic a possibility as North Korea launching a successful invasion and taking over there. 

 

Islam wanted to build a mosque on the site of the WTC 9/11 attacks.  Do you seriously believe a Caliphate can't be guilt ridden into the Liberals and pacifists . . . I do! 

Link to post
Share on other sites


DejaHo wrote:

Islam wanted to build a mosque on the site of the WTC 9/11 attacks.  Do you seriously believe a Caliphate can't be guilt ridden into the Liberals and pacifists . . . I do! 

 I don't see how "Islam" can intend to erect a building, any more that Christianity or Buddhism can.   Some Muslims may intend to put up building, or some Christians or some Buddhists, but not an entire religion.

In any case, five minutes Googling and reading would tell you that the site of the proposed "mosque" is not particularly near the site of the WTC 9/11 attacks, and that "mosque" isn't really a particulalry appropriate term anyway: 

While we're considering the term "Ground Zero Mosque,” we also wondered whether it was proper to call the project a mosque. A mosque is, in fact, planned there, but it's part of a plan for a much larger, $100 million cultural center that includes a swimming pool, gym and basketball court, a 500-seat auditorium, a restaurant and culinary school, a library and art studios. Organizers say the center would be open to all New Yorkers, regardless of faith, and would promote cultural diversity. But the center would be geared toward "engaging New York's many and diverse Muslim communities and promoting empowerment and compassion for all.”

According to Gamal, the mosque would be run separately from the rest of the facilities. And, he said, it would not tolerate "any kind of illegal or unAmerican activity and rhetoric.” Imam Rauf has been leading prayer services in one of the buildings since 2009.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2010/aug/20/fact-checking-ground-zero-mosque-debate/

Be that as it may, the plan was abandoned in 2011.

So if that  -- an abortive attempt to build something that wasn't really a mosque and wasn't particularly close to "ground zero" -- is your main reason for fearing that Daesh are likely to take over the USA, all I can say is that you seem to have rather a nervous disposition and may, if you don't mind my saying so, be getting things a tad out of proportion.

Link to post
Share on other sites
You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 1380 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...