https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/01/...
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?
Obama: implemented quietly, no official ban, limited to one country
Trump: implemented through executive order, covers 7 dangerous countries.
Apart from style and scope, the effect was/is the same: stop certain groups of people from coming here for a period of time, until better checks are implemented.
Except for Iran, the countries he has picked ARE on the list of the most terrorist-ridden places in the world [1][2].
[1] http://www.worldatlas.com/articles/the-global-terrorism-inde...
Instead of providing supporting argument for your above statement, you conveniently change the subject to another, only loosely related matter.
Whataboutism at its best :-)