|
|
 Originally Posted by BananaStand
So, can you explain to me why you have a problem with Trump compromising and backing off from an extreme policy that you hated to begin with? Can you explain why people who didn't take Trump literally at every turn should now "see the light"?
Because earlier, it was pretty clear that you were equating the actual travel ban policy with a hypothetical 'muslim ban' policy presented during the campaign.
If a president decides to take the least disruptive course of action (it's only 7 countries, and it's temporary), how is that, in your words "egregious", or "dangerous"?
It seems like you're equating the moderate policy with an extreme one. Rather than admit that the president is not the fascist monster you thought he was, you now seem to be saying that this moderate policy is just the first step toward the extreme policy.
How do you see it as anything other than a muslim ban is a better question. It's aimed specifically at 7 muslim majority countries.
Guiliani as much as said Trump asked him for advice on putting in the muslim ban. Does this sound like someone who's taking a compromise position?
Finally, you do realise the ban was overturned by the court as unconstitutional because it is based on religion? How do you reconcile that with it not being a 'muslim ban'?
Better obviously would have been not to try the muslim ban in any shape or form in the first place.
|
Reply With Quote