Absolutely not. Trump is the only one who did it. Your comment is completely wrong. Acting as if Obama “also” did something wrong here is utterly disingenuous in an intellectually bankrupt way - it is not comparable to Trump’s behavior and any attempt to argue it is comparable is, at this point, literally the same as legitimizing fascism.
But you feel like "Obama did it" is an apt corollary to the scale, scope and circumstances of this week's events? Because of an actual event, and the resulting review and re-examination of existing Iraqi refugees which caused a slowdown in the acceptance of new Iraqi refugees for several months, you know because of finite resources... and no explicit orders or stop immigration that equates close enough to Trump's EO? I mean there's just no way to discuss that rationally with someone who wants to make that comparison. It's intellectual laziness and textbook false equivalence. If Obama did nothing he would have been crucified for that by Republicans. And because Obama did the most benign thing possible he was likely crucified for that by Republicans. And because the thing he did had tangible consequences, but wasn't unreasonable, that's now justification for Trump's EO? Forget double dipping, some people are triple dipping.
But let's compare anyway. A review of existing refugees which caused the slower acceptance of new refugees in response to the discovered failure in the system.
VS
Trump picked some countries seemingly at random from a large pool of Muslim countries in order to fulfill a "campaign promise" regardless of actual need or circumstances. The countries he picked haven't been a hotbed of terrorism against the U.S. He selected no countries that he has business interests in, even if they have had citizens who've carried out attacks against the U.S. His executive order effected people with green cards and visa's people we've already researched and vetted, not just new immigration.
Yeah, they're the same event all right /s. So is your BS ignorance or dishonesty?
In both comments, you spoke only of "Trump praising an action made by Obama." It was not a comment specifically about this issue. I think that's fine. I don't have a problem with you failing to cite everybody who has ever done anything on this issue. It's just the irony of your comments.
I don't care if it was done under Obama too, it doesn't bless it and shouldn't make it okay with liberals.
Trump is still worthy of criticism by association because of his immigration policies clearly back this kind of behavior. And Obama is too if he condoned this.
Yeah, not Nixon with Watergate, Reagan with Iran-Contra, or Bush with Guantanamo. No, Obama's the precedent here and he's the one blame when Trump does something.
But that didn't happen, because Obama understood the rule of law, you can't defend Trump illegal actions by saying that if Obama had done that then the "leftists" would be cheering that.
First you say there is (I suppose you mean in absolute terms) no moral equivalence, but now you admit that Obama did the things I mention, but claim Trump will be worse.
Hmmmm, Hillary tried to do the same thing a long time ago and failed. But more importantly, even if you are correct, that is totally irrelevant to whether or not Obama had anything to do with it.
No, you are not. You are blaming Trump for a policy that was started when Obama was President. This isn't a "whataboutism" situation. When called on it, you tried to blame Republican Senators, even though they were in the minority when this policy was started.
I'm well aware of the difference, which is why I specifically did not reference any particular event for which Obama may have been responsible, except to illustrate that civil rights abuses have been going on for far longer than Trump has been president, and the comparative outcry has been infinitesimal.
Apologies if my deliberate ambiguity was hard to parse.
No, Obama simply wanted to shift from invasion to engagement.
Trump is purely an anti-establishment impulse (lubricated by racism, sexism, etc). To claim it's a reaction against Obama is to claim (ludicrously) that Obama == establishment.
reply