How did we get here?

[Kaos]

I saw something this weekend on CNN I think pondering whether SNL could "destroy the administration"

I saw where The Rock was pressured to cut ties with Underarmour because it's CEO had the audacity to say something positive about our president.

The social media warriors and twitter jousters have created a dynamic where the thoughtful and considered reaction of the masses is drowned out in a cacophony of faux outrage.

How have we reached a point in society where expressing support for the president is considered vile? That a comedy show is tasked with and celebrated for  "destroying" the president?

Political commentary is one thing.  SNL has always done it back as far as Chevys falling Ford. But this is something different. From the ode to Obama in song to the vicious attacks on Republicans, that show has turned into a pile of liberal propaganda. It got full of itself when it changed the national perception of Sarah Palin, crushing her political career essentially, and it's gone full rogue now.

It's a shameful state of affairs.  Makes me sad for the future.

[Snaggletiger]

The CEO of UA basically said the POTUS is a good business man.  Dewayne Johnson said his comments were "Divisive". But, he's going to stay on because UA is paying him a sick amount of Bwazillions to endorse their product.  Same with Steph Curry.

Six NE Patriots are skipping the trip to the White House in "protest".  Protest of what?

I couldn't agree more, K. 

[CCTAU]

Six NE Patriots are skipping the trip to the White House in "protest".  Protest of what?

Big deal. Once again, Yankee weak!

The south's own, The Atlanta Falcons. The WHOLE DAMN TEAM IS skipping the White House visit!

[Godfather]

And you may ask yourself
Where is that large automobile?

[Snaggletiger]

And you may ask yourself
Where is that large automobile?

Well, that's a once in a lifetime thing for most people.

[Godfather]

Well, that's a once in a lifetime thing for most people.

Am I right?...Am I wrong?

[WiregrassTiger]

And you may tell yourself, this is not my beautiful house.

[WiregrassTiger]

Well, that's a once in a lifetime thing for most people.

And you may ask yourself, how do I work this?

[Kaos]

It's not just the criticism and the ridiculousness of it that bothers me. 

There's a relentless mantra coming from the entire mainstream media that this "divisive" era is a Trump product.  It's his fault.  They bash him, slam him, ridicule him, question his motives, intelligence and ability and then in the very same piece of shit article they'll make some derisive comment about "the new Trumpian order of incivility..."   

I get that he's a bit of a blowhard. I see him struggling with the pace of government and the constant pushback against even his BEST ideas -- just becuse Amy Schumer or Tina Fey doesn't agree, not because they're not good ideas. I can see him chafing at the repetitive mischaracterization of his actions. Muslim ban? My ass. Terrorist safeguard is more like it.  If I were in charge there would BE a ban on Muslims one way or another, but all he's doing is what he deeply believes he was elected to do -- make the country safer. 

Other than his random tweets, however, I don't see the man doing anything "divisive" or "uncivil" at all.  Frankly I never saw him doing anything that could be construed in that manner during the campaign.  All he really did is just give voice to millions and millions of frustrated men and women who have been afraid to speak their mind on any subject that might be controversial -- BECAUSE of the divisive, abusive, confrontational, condescending, bullying tone of the fucking liberal left. 

Trump isn't the problem.  Never was.  It's the elitist left and their social engineering platform that suddenly is on the verge of a little derailing. 

I always thought Manson was right and there would be an eventual race war.  Even as recently as two years ago as Obama embrace the (here's that word) divisive Black Lives Matter movement I thought it might eventually erupt, even though I'd begun to realize that the liberal brainwashing that has infiltrated our entire system of public education had turned so many young/middle aged whites onto their own despairing white guilt/privilege that the battle lines would be vastly different than they would have been even a generation ago.  Now, though?  I'm beginning to wonder if the actual struggle will be between a different black and white.  The evil black of the liberal agenda and the shining white of the conservative system of values. 

[Godfather]

Here is part of the deal, it wasn't even a Muslim BAN.  I'm not sure if he started calling it that and the media has run with it or vice versa.  Most people don't even understand politics they yell and scream based on rumors or mis-interpretation.  Perpetuated by the media. Sheep we live in a world filled with sheep!  BAH!

[AUChizad]

Here is part of the deal, it wasn't even a Muslim BAN.  I'm not sure if he started calling it that and the media has run with it or vice versa.  Most people don't even understand politics they yell and scream based on rumors or mis-interpretation.  Perpetuated by the media. Sheep we live in a world filled with sheep!  BAH!

He did. He promised one in his campaign and then referred to his EO as a "Muslim ban" multiple times.

I agree that it wasn't a Muslim ban since it didn't apply to 87% of the world's Muslims. It applied to 7 specific countries, where Iran is the only country in the top 10 countries with the highest Muslim population at 7th.

But as I said before, it'd be a lot easier to defend in this way if he didn't call it that repeatedly before and after his election and before and after the executive order.

[WiregrassTiger]

He did. He promised one in his campaign and then referred to his EO as a "Muslim ban" multiple times.

I agree that it wasn't a Muslim ban since it didn't apply to 87% of the world's Muslims. It applied to 7 specific countries, where Iran is the only country in the top 10 countries with the highest Muslim population at 7th.

But as I said before, it'd be a lot easier to defend in this way if he didn't call it that repeatedly before and after his election and before and after the executive order.

This is one of the few things that you've ever said that makes sense and is right. Probably like ever.

[CCTAU]

He should have referred to it as a ban of muslims who wish to kill Americans and destroy their way of life...

Oh wait. That is just a mulsim ban...

[Kaos]

He did. He promised one in his campaign and then referred to his EO as a "Muslim ban" multiple times.

I'd like you to prove this. 

[chinook]

I'd like you to prove this.

i agree.

[WiregrassTiger]

i agree.

Yeah, I take back what I said about Chizzy being right. He's a dumbass.

[AUChizad]

I'd like you to prove this.

The link includes links to every single one of these occurances.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2017/01/trump_s_executive_order_on_immigration_is_a_muslim_ban.html

Dec. 7, 2015: Following the terror attack in San Bernardino, California, Trump calls for a “complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.” He bases this on a confused and distorted claim that “large segments of the Muslim population” favor Sharia (Islamic law) and violence against Americans.

Dec. 8, 2015: Trump rejects arguments that his proposal is discriminatory and wrong. On MSNBC, he says even supposedly innocent Muslims are guilty of protecting terrorists. He escalates his threats, falsely accusing Muslims of failing to report the San Bernardino plot:

The Muslim community is not reporting what’s going on. They should be reporting that their next-door neighbor is making pipe bombs and they’ve got them all over the place. The mother’s in the apartment, other people, his friend was buying him rifles. Nobody was reporting that. … The Muslim community has to help us, because without the Muslim community, we would have to get very tough and much tougher.
Jan. 14, 2016: In a Republican primary debate, moderator Maria Bartiromo asks Trump: “Is there anything you’ve heard that makes you want to rethink this position?” “No,” he says. “We have to stop with political correctness.”

March 9: Trump tells CNN’s Anderson Cooper, “Islam hates us.” Cooper asks: “Is there a war between the West and radical Islam, or between the West and Islam itself?” Trump replies: “It’s very hard to separate, because you don’t know who is who.”

March 10: At another debate, Sen. Marco Rubio says: “If you go to any national cemetery, especially Arlington, you’re going to see crescent moons there. If you go anywhere in the world, you’re going see American men and women serving us in uniform that are Muslims.” Trump brushes off these objections: “You can be politically correct if you want. I don’t want to be so politically correct. I like to solve problems. We have a serious, serious problem of hate … where large portions of a group of people, Islam, large portions want to use very, very harsh means.” He suggests additional reasons to beware of Islam: “Women are treated horribly, and other things are happening that are very, very bad.”

June 13: In a speech responding to the terror attack in Orlando, Florida, Trump pledges to “suspend immigration from areas of the world when there is a proven history of terrorism against the United States, Europe, or our allies.” This formulation—which, according to Rudy Giuliani, was orchestrated by Trump’s advisers as a legally permissible alternative to his original “Muslim ban”—appears to replace the explicit ban. But Trump suggests that Muslims from other countries are still a problem: “Each year, the United States permanently admits more than 100,000 immigrants from the Middle East, and many more from Muslim countries outside the Middle East.” He also adds a new rationale for excluding Muslims: that “they’re trying to take over our children and convince them how wonderful ISIS is and how wonderful Islam is.”

July 17: On 60 Minutes, Lesley Stahl reminds Trump that his running mate, Mike Pence, once called a Muslim ban unconstitutional. Trump shrugs: “So you call it territories. OK? We’re gonna do territories. We’re gonna not let people come in from Syria …” Stahl asks: “So not Muslims?” Trump replies: “You know, the Constitution, there’s nothing like it. But it doesn’t necessarily give us the right to commit suicide as a country, OK?”

July 24: On Meet the Press, Chuck Todd asks whether the territorial ban is a “rollback” of Trump’s position. Trump says no: “In fact, you could say it’s an expansion. I’m looking now at territories. People were so upset when I used the word Muslim. ‘Oh, you can’t use the word Muslim,’ ” he says, mockingly. “But just remember this: Our Constitution is great, but it doesn’t necessarily give us the right to commit suicide, OK?”

July 27: At a press conference, Trump repeats that Muslim neighbors and congregants are responsible for terrorism: “I think that the people in the community know what’s going on, whether it’s in a mosque or it’s in the community. And they have to report these people.” The next day, at a rally in Iowa, he warns: “If a community isn’t going to report when they know something’s going to happen, those people have to suffer the consequences.”

Aug. 15: Trump extends his proposed crackdown. “In addition to screening out all members or sympathizers of terrorist groups,” he says, “we must also screen out any … who believe that Sharia law should supplant American law.” This clause taps into a misconception that Muslims who revere religious law, unlike Christians who do the same, can’t accept pluralism. By making such reverence disqualifying, Trump is able to exclude many more Muslims.

Sept. 14: Trump says of Syrian refugees: “We don’t know if they have love or hate in their heart, and there’s no way to tell. We can’t let these people come into our country.” On its face, this statement makes the presumption of unacceptable risk unfalsifiable.

Oct. 9: At a debate, ABC’s Martha Raddatz asks Trump about the Muslim ban: “Was it a mistake to have a religious test?” He doesn’t answer. He says the ban “has morphed into extreme vetting from certain areas of the world.” Raddatz presses: “Would you please explain whether or not the Muslim ban still stands?” Again, Trump refuses to say yes or no. “It’s called extreme vetting,” he says. “We are going to areas, like Syria.”

Nov. 10: Two days after his election, Trump speaks to reporters at the U.S. Capitol. A reporter asks: “Are you going to ask Congress to ban Muslims from entering the country?” Trump stares at the reporter, says “Thank you, everybody,” and walks away.

Dec. 21: In Florida, a reporter asks Trump whether he has decided “to rethink or re-evaluate your plans to create a Muslim registry or ban Muslim immigration to the United States.” Trump replies: “You know my plans. All along, I’ve been proven to be right.”

Jan. 27: In an interview for the Christian Broadcasting Network, David Brody asks Trump: “The refugee changes you’re looking to make—as it relates to persecuted Christians, do you see them as kind of a priority?” Trump says yes. “If you were a Christian in Syria, it was impossible, at least very tough, to get into the United States,” he says. “If you were a Muslim, you could come in. But if you were a Christian, it was almost impossible.” This characterization is grossly misleading. But Trump concludes that the process “was very, very unfair” to Christians. “So we are going to help them.”

Later that day, Trump issues his order. It suspends “entry into the United States of aliens” from countries in which “a foreign terrorist organization has a significant presence.” In practice, this means seven Muslim countries: Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. The order doesn’t mention Christians, but it commits the United States to “prioritize refugee claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution, provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual’s country of nationality.”

Jan. 29: Trump tweets: “Our country needs strong borders and extreme vetting … Christians in the Middle-East have been executed in large numbers. We cannot allow this horror to continue!” Trump doesn’t mention Shiite Muslims, who are executed in greater numbers and are less likely than Christians to be admitted to the United States.

[AUJarhead]

The link includes links to every single one of these occurances.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2017/01/trump_s_executive_order_on_immigration_is_a_muslim_ban.html

I don't see anywhere in that link where Trump refers to his EO as a "Muslim Ban." 

[Kaos]

I don't see anywhere in that link where Trump refers to his EO as a "Muslim Ban."

Nope. Me either.

I like it when other people do my work.

[AUChizad]

I don't see anywhere in that link where Trump refers to his EO as a "Muslim Ban."

http://www.businessinsider.com/giuliani-trump-asked-me-how-to-do-a-muslim-ban-legally-2017-1

"When he first announced it, he said 'Muslim ban,'" Giuliani, who served as the vice chairman of Trump's transition team, told Fox. "He called me up. He said 'put a commission together. Show me the right way to do it legally.'"

Giuliani then put a commission together with Judge Mike Mukasey, Congressman Mike McCaul, Rep. Pete King, and a "whole group of very expert lawyers on this," he said.

"We focused on, instead of religion, on danger," Giuliani continued. "The areas of the world that create danger for us. Which is a factual basis, not a religious basis. Perfectly legal, perfectly sensible. And that's what the ban is based on."