Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

DonViejo

(60,536 posts)
Sat Jan 28, 2017, 07:28 PM Jan 2017

More Republicans are speaking out against Trump's refugee ban. Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell aren't

Source: The Washington Post



More Republicans are speaking out against Trump’s refugee ban. Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell aren’t among them.

By Kelsey Snell, Karoun Demirjian and Mike DeBonis January 28 at 5:27 PM

Several congressional Republicans on Saturday questioned President Trump’s order to halt admission to the U.S. by refugees and citizens of seven Muslim-majority countries, even as House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) continued to defend it.

Ryan was among the first lawmakers on Friday to back Trump’s order, and his office reiterated his support on Saturday.

“This is not a religious test and it is not a ban on people of any religion,” said spokeswoman AshLee Strong.

The order blocks citizens from Iran, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Sudan, Somalia and Libya from entering the country for at least 90 days. It also bans refugees from anywhere in the world for 120 days — and from Syria indefinitely. Trump said that the goal is to screen out “radical Islamic terrorists” and that priority for admission would be given to Christians.

Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/paul-ryan-trumps-refugee-ban-does-not-target-muslims/2017/01/28/e0cf1fe4-e56e-11e6-a547-5fb9411d332c_story.html?utm_term=.8527c4cb8e63&wpisrc=nl_evening&wpmm=1




16 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

global1

(25,251 posts)
3. We Need To Keep Associating The Repugs With Trump.....
Sat Jan 28, 2017, 07:33 PM
Jan 2017

that is the only way we'll be able to contain both of them. We need massive voter turnout in 2018 so we can take back the House & Senate.

notdarkyet

(2,226 posts)
5. Yep. Need to keep telling Repubs we are getting rid of you. The minute we get a
Sat Jan 28, 2017, 07:45 PM
Jan 2017

Chance you are gone. There are more of us than of you. We hold you responsible for letting this unhinged manic ruin our country and what be a shining example on the hill standing for freedom and liberty for all. Not speaking out or speaking against these vile attacks on our freedoms and liberties makes you complicit. You are the ones who don't love America. Traitors all of you.

murielm99

(30,741 posts)
10. We start by shaving their heads.
Sat Jan 28, 2017, 09:25 PM
Jan 2017

I would love to see Trump and some of his cronies with shaven heads. If this gets alerted, okay. You know I am not the only one who associates collaborators with shaven heads.

pangaia

(24,324 posts)
4. Ryan said he was against the idea during the campaign.
Sat Jan 28, 2017, 07:37 PM
Jan 2017

I guess he had a little sit down with Der Führer.

 

KittyWampus

(55,894 posts)
6. Another DU'ers suggests Ryan/McConnell know Trump/Bannon has the goods on all of them
Sat Jan 28, 2017, 07:45 PM
Jan 2017

and is threatening them.

I think that this WH is essentially acting as a crime syndicate.

Solly Mack

(90,769 posts)
7. Bannon hates Ryan, so Ryan won't do anything to get himself in trouble with Bannon
Sat Jan 28, 2017, 08:02 PM
Jan 2017

He is too much a coward.

ProudLib72

(17,984 posts)
9. Is this not the reason
Sat Jan 28, 2017, 09:19 PM
Jan 2017

we have a second amendment? To save our country from a tyrannical leader? If things continue like this for another week, I'm afraid we may very well see the beginning of a civil war.

RealityChik

(382 posts)
12. What about Saudi Arabia, Egypt, United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Indonesia, Ukraine and India?
Sat Jan 28, 2017, 10:38 PM
Jan 2017

Why not these countries, Mr Trump? I mean, fair is fair, right? Could it be because you have business deals in those countries?

And how about the Philippines, France, Germany, Austria, Switzerland and the U.K?

Even China has 23 million Muslims! And Russia? 11% of the Russian population is Muslim! Oh, wait...don't you owe China and Russia a sh*tload of money?

Just sayin'...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_world

zstat

(55 posts)
14. Recent actions warrant removal from office: 25th amendment and emoluments clause
Sun Jan 29, 2017, 12:15 AM
Jan 2017

President Trump prepared an executive order that limited entry to the US, limited entry of persons from 7 countries in order TO REDUCE THE CHANCES OF A TERRORIST ENTERING the US and thereby REDUCE THE CHANCES OF A TERRORIST HARMFUL EVENT in the US and to the US citizens. This is his rationale for the Muslim-travel-to-the-US executive order.

Well lets continue with his rationale for a few moments.

He excludes from the list of 7, 4 nearby/adjacent countries with large if not majority Muslim populations. The terrorists from 9/11 had visas from three of the four excluded countries. And no US citizen has been harmed between 1975 and 2014 by a terrorist from the 7 listed countries. Any average US citizen would conclude that the excluded countries present a far greater risk of harm from terrorists. The wrong countries are on the exclusion list.

Yes, this is irrational, lacks logic, and is in fact, dangerous.

The exclusion of 4 adjacent countries with similar Muslim population have one thing in common - they are countries where President Trump has significant business/financial arrangements.

Conclusion: President Trump, by his actions of identifying 7 countries on his list and excluding similar four adjacent countries is KNOWINGLY putting US citizens at increased risk of harm from a terrorist event in the US.

These actions present grounds for removing President Trump from office based on two criteria according to the Constitution: 25th amendment on the basis of inability to make appropriate decisions and thereby endanger the safety of American people; and, emoluments clause where decisions and actions conflict with business interests.

“The idea behind the clause is pretty intuitive,” Harvard Law professor Noah Feldman notes at Bloomberg View. “If federal officials can be compensated by foreign governments, they can be bought.” By not putting the four adjacent countries on the list, the foreign governments of the four countries are compensating the president with "good will" and full access to business ventures completed, in progress, and those to be further developed.

turbinetree

(24,703 posts)
16. Lets be clear here......................
Sun Jan 29, 2017, 12:21 AM
Jan 2017

"damn near all" of these "fascists republicans" voted for Donald Trump on November 8, 2017 and now they are whining about what this megalomaniac sexual predator is doing this, he said he was going to do it when he was campaigning, they joined in on the Rat F***k" of "democracy" all there lives while being in the republican, and now they come out on this issue party, where were they when he signed his first order, they were not standing and defending "democracy" that's for sure...................patriots my ass...................., there about one week late going on the second week, and zippy with orange hair, is dangerous, he really is a psychopath right along with Bannon.




Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»More Republicans are spea...