Not playing your pedantic game. Sorry, pops!I hated what Obama did? Show me where I posted hate for what Obama did.
It's not a Muslim ban if it doesn't ban Muslims, and it doesn't ban Muslims.
Except Obama is the one that picked the 7 countries to begin with.
If this is about safety does it make sense to use a list the founder of ISIS put together?
ahh it is betsy.. shouldn't you be putting bibles in public schools or something?piss off twerp.
Radical Islamic terrorists?What concerns me is President Trump’s impulsiveness. I think decisions like this are being made without proper data to back them up. What is this decision backfires and is used by radical Islamic terrorist groups as a recruitment tool. I’m no expert on the subject so if someone has a link to a research study on this subject I would appreciate it.
Radical Islamic terrorists?
The true terrorists are so-called elected leaders. They use their trillion dollar armies to annihilate the poor people of the world. Their justification is the boogeyman called the Radical Islamic terrorists.
I'm interested to see in where you think Trump's actions conformed with Obamas. Obama halted immigration of refugees for 6 months from Iraq. Trump is doing something similar, so lets toss that issue aside for now.
Obama changed the Visa waiver program for non-us citizens that were from 7 different countries or if they had visited them. This applied to granting new visas's only, if they already had a valid visa they didn't have an issue. They could also still apply for a new visa. The people that had a valid visa and were not in the country were still welcome to come back in and utilize their valid visa. Trump has barred people from applying for a new visa or using an existing visa that was obtained legally.
If you can't see the difference then there is no use continuing this discussion.
...says the partisan. He made the assertion, not me. And just why do you feel so compelled as to interject yourself into a discussion where someone expresses a personal opinion regarding an interview and my asking him to substantiate that opinion? Think about it and get back to me.
The problem with the trump apologists here on this board is that they don't understand how the law works.
Laws are ruled on both their intent and results/impact, regardless of what the law actually said. Its exactly why voter ID laws whose authors claim they are intended to protect the integrity of the system are ruled unconstitutional because the effects of those laws discriminate or creates an undue burden on minorities, all despite nothing in the law saying it's intentions were to discriminate against minorities.
So, just like with a lot of voter ID laws (or anti abortion laws, or some gun laws), this EO may have not explicitly say it bans Muslims, the execution of such orders would in fact ban Muslims from said counties. Period.
The problem with the trump apologists here on this board is that they don't understand how the law works.
Laws are ruled on both their intent and results/impact, regardless of what the law actually said. Its exactly why voter ID laws whose authors claim they are intended to protect the integrity of the system are ruled unconstitutional because the effects of those laws discriminate or creates an undue burden on minorities, all despite nothing in the law saying it's intentions were to discriminate against minorities.
So, just like with a lot of voter ID laws (or anti abortion laws, or some gun laws), this EO may have not explicitly say it bans Muslims, the execution of such orders would in fact ban Muslims from said counties. Period.
...says the hypocrite who resorts to personal attacks without even attempting to engage in honest debate.You're a partisan who isn't interested in serious or honest debate, why I'm pointing that out should be self evident.
lol...says the hypocrite who resorts to personal attacks without even attempting to engage in honest debate.
What's funny about this is that it is exactly as you said hypocrisy. All the uproar over this is literally originating from a place of hate for Trump.
Chant with me now:
Trump is not a bad man!
This is not a Muslim Ban!
Trump is not a bad man!
This is not a Muslim Ban!
Trump is not a bad man!
This is not a Muslim Ban!
Maybe it will finally sink in. Not likely though, because you have a testa duro. You know what that is? I bet Giuliani knows
On a more serious note. You can lambaste Trump for requesting a ban on Muslims if what Giuliani says is true. You can rebuke him for a private conversation between he and Giuliani. But you still have to admit that is not what the implementation is doing and that he never publicly stated it as a Muslim ban unless you want to distort the truth (aka lie) about it.
The problem with the trump apologists here on this board is that they don't understand how the law works.
Laws are ruled on both their intent and results/impact, regardless of what the law actually said. Its exactly why voter ID laws whose authors claim they are intended to protect the integrity of the system are ruled unconstitutional because the effects of those laws discriminate or creates an undue burden on minorities, all despite nothing in the law saying it's intentions were to discriminate against minorities.
So, just like with a lot of voter ID laws (or anti abortion laws, or some gun laws), this EO may have not explicitly say it bans Muslims, the execution of such orders would in fact ban Muslims from said counties. Period.
...says the hypocrite who resorts to personal attacks without even attempting to engage in honest debate.