Then why only include less that 12% of the worldwide muslim population in his moratorium? That would be like saying Im going to ban Volkswagons, then putting a moratorium on red diesel hatchbacks only.
Unfortunately he is unable to dictate immigration on the basis of religion, which was pretty obviously his intent.
Then why only include less that 12% of the worldwide muslim population in his moratorium? That would be like saying Im going to ban Volkswagons, then putting a moratorium on red diesel hatchbacks only.
Exactly. Getting so bored with the but, but, but why didn't he ban all Muslims inanity. Trump could give 2 shits about keeping Muslims out if this country. This is all about placating his rabid right wing overactive fear center racist punk supporters. Nothing more, nothing less...I think the most important thing to look at is the statements of the players involved:
1) Trump explicitly said he wanted to ban Muslim immigration.
2) He asked Giuliani how he could ban Muslims legally.
3) Giuliani gave him this answer.
4) Trump implemented it.
The easiest answer is that it was banning the greatest number of Muslims he thought he could get away with.
Not that separation of powers thing again. Everybody should bend to the will of the Great Leader cuz reasons & shit. So sad.
I think the most important thing to look at is the statements of the players involved:
1) Trump explicitly said he wanted to ban Muslim immigration.
2) He asked Giuliani how he could ban Muslims legally.
3) Giuliani gave him this answer.
4) Trump implemented it.
The easiest answer is that it was banning the greatest number of Muslims he thought he could get away with.
Chris Christie also corroborated Giuliani's behind he scene's account. I don't think there can really be any question at this point of Trump's true motive. He is pandering to his base, and their motives are quite simple: they just don't want Muslims here, the fewer the better.
So far as separation of powers, look for Trump to order executive branch agencies to ignore court orders. Then we'll have a Constitutional crisis on our hands.
Then why only include less that 12% of the worldwide muslim population in his moratorium? That would be like saying Im going to ban Volkswagons, then putting a moratorium on red diesel hatchbacks only.
My peers? Wha? Please find a quote from me that says I think this is a great idea.As mentioned, getting a good chunk of the arab looking browns is probably good enough for your peers.
My peers? Wha? Please find a quote from me that says I think this is a great idea.
Thanks in advance!
WTF does that have to do with trumps EO? LMAO"You don't make the poor richer by making the rich poorer." ~Winston Churchill"
must be another independent
WTF does that have to do with trumps EO? LMAO
/shakes head
I have no idea what youre talking about. I havent even commented in that thread.
Youre seriously grasping at straws, son.
After the logical error in your argument was shown above, it would be in your interest to acknowlege that such a party can also spot thinking mistakes of similar level. So instead of assuming self-confident competent, consider your instinctive BothSides argument in this thread in light of what was said about BothSides in the link.
I dont know what "BothSides" means, all I know is 1. Obama imposed restrictions on travelers from the same 7 countries Trump imposed a moratorium on, and admittedly werent the same restrictions, and 2. you seem to be interpreting meaning into my words other than what Ive written.
So either you have a problem with the truth, or youre trying to paint me into a corner in which Im nowhere near standing.
Anyway, rage on bro. I guess.
If you can't figure out what some term/concept means, why would you assume it doesn't apply? Did you default to this strategy in school?
O rly? : "you seem to be interpreting meaning into my words other than what Ive written."Again, youre assuming. I never said it doesnt apply.
I simply said I dont know what it means, and once again clarified the post I made in youre quote.Im still trying to figure out what your point is...
Obtuse much?
O rly? : "you seem to be interpreting meaning into my words other than what Ive written."
Frankly I don't think it's hard to figure that insisting on political equivalence no matter how much distinction is drawn is called BothSides, especially when it's alluded to multiple times in the link a la fair and balanced, etc.
i AGREE political equivalence is an admiral goal; however, history has shown us there are many sides to an issue. Im not sure what that has to do with the thread at hand. Compromise has always been second best.
I still dont know what "BothSides" means. Do you have a link with an explanation?
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Balance_fallacy, a hallmark of Fox News as mentioned.
It was previously explained to you why Trump "picked" those country, to make the same argument you are ("hey obama picked those for something") for plausibly deniable. Good thing judges are smarter than conservatives.
Actually, although I agree many people suffer from...what do you call it..."BothSides"...let me explain why its a fallacy. Because sometimes BOTH sides are right.
Take a setting of a country barn. One side is the main entrance/exit of the barn...big barn doors, etc. Other side is just the back of the barn, with a single window at the top.
Put two people at the barn. One at the front, one at the back. For 8 hours. After 8 hours, interview both people as to what they saw during their 8 hour shift.
One side will say "oh! So much activity! Animals were moving in and out, tractors moving hay inside, people walking all around. Very busy day!"
Second person says "Well, I didnt really see anything. A couple of birds flew in and out of the window, but that about it."
BOTH accounts are correct, yet VERY VERY different. Thats how news is. One side reports one thing, another news reports something very different. Is one side wrong? Not necessarily. Just different viewpoints. But BOTH viewpoints are correct.
Thus, why its important to consume your news from both sides. But because it very well be both sides are correct.
How does it apply to the hr\thread at hand? The fact is Trump got his 7 country list from the Obama administration, although he imposed different sanctions against those 7 countries. As Ive said, neither POTUS did anything in their decisions that did anything for "national security". Two sides of the same coin.