Trump wins 2- Travel Ban and abortion clinic ruling

[ivwshane]

After you tell me with a straight face its a Muslim ban when 80-95% of Muslims can still travel to the US... go ahead....

I'm sure you will agree that an assault rifle ban isn't a ban on guns since it only affects 10-20% of guns.

 

[blackangst1]

I'm sure you will agree that an assault rifle ban isn't a ban on guns since it only affects 10-20% of guns.

Of course I agree.

 

[fskimospy]

After you tell me with a straight face its a Muslim ban when 80-95% of Muslims can still travel to the US... go ahead....

Of course I can tell you it’s a Muslim ban, this is common sense. The vast majority of the people banned are Muslim and they were targeted explicitly because of their religion, as per the repeated statements of the president.

I would suggest reading this article as to why the protests that not all Muslims are banned are nonsense.

http://thehill.com/opinion/civil-ri...ghts-is-the-best-defense-against-a-travel-ban

Here’s the relevant parts:

Trump has repeatedly stated that his order is intended to target Muslims. As a candidate, he advocated a “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.”

When he switched to a “territorial” approach targeting citizens of Muslim-majority nations, he called it an “expansion” of his earlier strategy, and repeatedly equated the two.

Courts promptly struck down Trump’s first travel ban order. They also struck down his second order. Travel Ban 3.0 is a direct outgrowth of its two predecessors. Indeed, it is even worse, because it is permanent instead of lasting for only 90 days.

The president’s defenders can no longer claim that the policy is a just a temporary measure needed to give time to review vetting procedures.

The inclusion of North Korea and Venezuela in Travel Ban 3.0 does not change its anti-Muslim focus. Almost no North Koreans enter the U.S., and the Venezuela exclusion applies only to a few government officials and their families.

Neither does it matter that the travel ban does not cover all the Muslims in the world. What matters is that the vast majority of those excluded are Muslim, and they have been barred precisely because of their religion.

An employer who repeatedly announced he wanted to avoid hiring African-Americans could not make his policies legal by targeting applicants who live in majority-black neighborhoods, even though such a rule would not exclude all blacks and would bar some whites.

Pretty hard to argue with that. Muslim ban.

 

[Jhhnn]

After you tell me with a straight face its a Muslim ban when 80-95% of Muslims can still travel to the US... go ahead....

So, Trump promised his base there would be a muslim ban, didn't institute one, and the base believes he did....

And it's all good because it's not really a ban.

I always have trouble with what passes for logic in the post truth realm...

 

[fskimospy]

So, Trump promised his base there would be a muslim ban, didn't institute one, and the base believes he did....

And it's all good because it's not really a ban.

I always have trouble with what passes for logic in the post truth realm...

If odd that Trump and his associates keep insisting this non-Muslim ban is a Muslim ban. I wonder why they are so confused about their own policy.

 

[blackangst1]

Of course I can tell you it’s a Muslim ban, this is common sense. The vast majority of the people banned are Muslim and they were targeted explicitly because of their religion, as per the repeated statements of the president.

I would suggest reading this article as to why the protests that not all Muslims are banned are nonsense.

http://thehill.com/opinion/civil-ri...ghts-is-the-best-defense-against-a-travel-ban

Here’s the relevant parts:



Pretty hard to argue with that. Muslim ban.

So was it a Muslim ban when Obama passed H.R.158 - Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015 which effectively did the same thing?

http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/article/2017/feb/03/donald-trumps-executive-order-muslim-ban/

The order does not specifically bar Muslims. It applies only to citizens of Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia and Yemen. Those seven countries have only 12 percent of the world’s Muslims and Muslims from other countries can still enter the United States.

Or is that different?

 

[UglyCasanova]

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/394263-cnns-tapper-presses-ellison-on-ties-to-farrakhan

Damned racist Republicans

 

[Meghan54]

So was it a Muslim ban when Obama passed H.R.158 - Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015 which effectively did the same thing?

http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/article/2017/feb/03/donald-trumps-executive-order-muslim-ban/



Or is that different?

Forgot to read a bit more of what you linked, or willfully ignored it...?

From your linked article......

The law says anyone who has traveled to those countries since March 2011 can’t use what is known as the Visa Waiver Program, which allows travel to the United States for up to 90 days without a visa. But, unlike Trump’s order, under that law people not eligible for the waiver program could still enter the United States with a visa.

Guess not.

That paragraph describes exactly what changed in the Visa Waiver Program vis a vis citizens of the listed countries affected. Those citizens could still enter the U.S. if have obtained a visa.

Vastly different than completely prohibiting travel U.S. from those countries by any and all of its citizens, with little to no recourse, as Trump's does.

 

[ivwshane]

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/394263-cnns-tapper-presses-ellison-on-ties-to-farrakhan

Damned racist Republicans

More like stupid whataboutism.

 

[sportage]

Wait... JUST WAIT.....
Just wait until Donald Trump demands that all Americans "JUSTIFY" their citizenship....
Just wait.....
Imagine Donald Trump demanding that all non-white American citizenry living within America PROVE their citizenship. Prove they should in fact be here. Legally.
Because for Donald Trump, and with his uncontrolled brain-farts, you just never know.....
Anyone within America having less than lily white skin just "might" be here illegally.
Or, certainly might be up to no good.
That, is what Donald would believe.

Imagine Trump insisting on zero-tolerance policy for proof of citizenship.
Basing that question on skin color alone.
All parents of mixed-raced children demanded to prove that child's citizenship.
Proof via ONLY a certified birth certificate.

And what about the spouse?
What might their skin color be?
And where exactly is their proof of citizenship? Their certified birth certificate?
Sound crazy?
Not really that far fetched considering..... Donald Trump.
Donald Trump could easily demand this using his simple right as president.
Another Donald Trump executive order.
Justifying it all as within the interest of national security.
And undoubtedly, the US Supreme Court would gladly go along should anyone dare challenge this Donald Trump executive order.

If THIS happened, then would those Trump supporters finally have a change of heart?
Possibly rethink their undying support for Donald?
I wonder....
But I seriously doubt they would.
Even if the legality of their own child or spouse were called into question.

 

[fskimospy]

So was it a Muslim ban when Obama passed H.R.158 - Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015 which effectively did the same thing?

http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/article/2017/feb/03/donald-trumps-executive-order-muslim-ban/

Or is that different?

I’m not sure, did Obama come out and repeatedly say ‘my goal here is to ban Muslims.’?

The article I linked shows pretty convincingly that these arguments it isn’t a Muslim ban are nonsense.

 

[Jhhnn]

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/394263-cnns-tapper-presses-ellison-on-ties-to-farrakhan

Damned racist Republicans

Who to believe? Ellison or Farrakhan?

Or just believe what you want as you duh-vert away from the muslim ban topic.

 

[blackangst1]

I’m not sure, did Obama come out and repeatedly say ‘my goal here is to ban Muslims.’?

The article I linked shows pretty convincingly that these arguments it isn’t a Muslim ban are nonsense.

Again. If it was Trump's intention to ban Muslims, why not ban travel from the highest Muslim populations? Thats like a person who has a huge problem with ants in his yard says I hate ants and want to kill them all yet only sprays one out of 25 ant hills?

Your argument lacks common sense.

 

[ivwshane]

Again. If it was Trump's intention to ban Muslims, why not ban travel from the highest Muslim populations? Thats like a person who has a huge problem with ants in his yard says I hate ants and want to kill them all yet only sprays one out of 25 ant hills?

Your argument lacks common sense.

Could those nations be argued, no matter how thinly, to be a national security threat?

The very reason whatever country you are talking about wasn't on the list was most likely to have gullible idiots like yourself say, "see its not a Muslim ban".

How silly you must feel.

 

[fskimospy]

Again. If it was Trump's intention to ban Muslims, why not ban travel from the highest Muslim populations? Thats like a person who has a huge problem with ants in his yard says I hate ants and want to kill them all yet only sprays one out of 25 ant hills?

Your argument lacks common sense.

Did you read the article I linked? Acting from a desire to ban Muslims does not require Trump to ban all Muslims or even most Muslims. As stated, if a business owner repeatedly and publicly stated his goal was to prevent black people from working at his business and then said he wouldn’t hire anyone from several majority black neighborhoods no one would even try to argue his goal wasn’t to ban blacks from his business.

I know Trump lies about literally everything but every once in a great while you need to just take him at his word. He said his goal was to ban Muslims, why won’t you believe him?

 

[Atreus21]

In the case of the abortion decision, it's astonishing that the liberal justices will prioritize abortion advocacy over a foundational liberty.

It seems the left's race to the extremities is leaving Kennedy behind.

 

[fskimospy]

In the case of the abortion decision, it's astonishing that the liberal justices will prioritize abortion advocacy over a foundational liberty.

It seems the left's race to the extremities is leaving Kennedy behind.

So presumably you believe all state laws that currently require doctors to show women ultrasounds before getting an abortion, the ones that require them to read statements to them about abortion, etc, should all be abolished?

 

[Jhhnn]

In the case of the abortion decision, it's astonishing that the liberal justices will prioritize abortion advocacy over a foundational liberty.

It seems the left's race to the extremities is leaving Kennedy behind.

Gawd. The foundational liberty involved is a woman's sovereignty over her own body. That's what the court nibbles away at.

 

[fskimospy]

Gawd. The foundational liberty involved is a woman's sovereignty over her own body. That's what the court nibbles away at.

He’s referring to the foundational liberty of unscrupulous people to lie to pregnant women about their medical options.

Remember though, they are the moral ones.

 

[thraashman]

The conservatives on the SCOTUS have proven beyond any shadow of a doubt that they give absolutely zero shits about the Constitution when making their decisions and are basing it purely on politics.

 

[fskimospy]

The conservatives on the SCOTUS have proven beyond any shadow of a doubt that they give absolutely zero shits about the Constitution when making their decisions and are basing it purely on politics.

They showed that years ago. In rulings a day or so apart Scalia argued in one case that SCOTUS no authority to second guess congressional decisions when it came to discriminating against gay people and in the other he said Congress couldn’t be trusted to make the right choice when it came to protecting the rights of minorities to vote.

We all know if you made the Muslim ban a Christian ban and made the Christian cake shop a Muslim bakery the results would have been the opposite. It’s about tribal identity.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

tajjy is such a good little boot licker.

and Sheiky is such a great little butt licker.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

The conservatives on the SCOTUS have proven beyond any shadow of a doubt that they give absolutely zero shits about the Constitution when making their decisions and are basing it purely on politics.

Sorry if your little faux wet dream that the President doesn't have authority to control our border security failed big time.

 

[nickqt]

Sorry if your little faux wet dream that the President doesn't have authority to control our border security failed big time.

Mmmm, outright authoritarianism. Nice.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Mmmm, outright authoritarianism. Nice.

It's the law and it's been upheld numerous times. This is just one more. Why do you hate the law?