Context is hard. Yet, even though we have an overt action that specifically clarifies actual intent and context...you still cling to your lies and 'alternate truth'. Surprise, surprise! I would expect nothing less from you.The context being:
1. Trump publicly states he wants to ban Muslim immigration to the US. He even puts a yuge statement about it on his website.
2. Trump asks Giuliani to design a plan to ban Muslims that will pass constitutional muster.
3. Giuliani does this, and gives his 'legal Muslim ban' plan to Trump.
4. Trump then implements that plan through executive order.
5. In that executive order he carves out special exemptions for all non-Islamic religions.
But yeah it's totally not about banning Muslim immigration.
I can't imagine how stupid someone would have to be to not see this absolutely deliberate intent. In your case I imagine it's just the usual motivated reasoning. That and I'm sure you admire another 'who, me?'-er. As always though, please continue to enjoy your thoughts about how everyone who disagrees with you on ATPN is a liar and how all the moderators are biased against you and how you are a terribly, terribly picked on victim.
Good. So ends justify means.Sure.
Yet Muslims can still immigrate.
Yet Muslims can still immigrate.
Yes it does. If you're targeting Muslims from particular countries than your target is a combination of two things considered to be risky: a religion that has had trouble with terrorism, coming from a country that has had trouble with exporting terrorism.
Can Muslims still immigrate or not?
In essence you reject my first premise - that a Muslim ban means all Muslims are banned. You say instead that some Muslims are banned. Is that correct?
Sure.
Context is hard. Yet, even though overt action clarifies the actual intent and context...you still cling to your lies and 'alternate truth'. Surprise, surprise! And I would expect nothing less from you.
IN THE CONTEXT OF MUSLIM JIHADISTS!!!! My God you're dense.Yes, it does clarify the actual intent and makes it very clear that the intended target was Muslims. I don't know why you would keep lying to yourself about this.
I mean for fuck's sake Trump campaigned on banning Muslims and Giuliani came right out and said that this was the plan Trump asked for on how to do it 'legally'. How much more explicit could you ever hope to get?
So to be clear, if a single Muslim could still immigrate you would say that it wasn't a Muslim ban?
So to be clear, if a single Muslim could still immigrate you would say that it wasn't a Muslim ban?
I do reject your premise. This is a ban that's obviously and deliberately targeted at Muslims and we should call a spade a spade. No political correctness, no spin, just call it what it is.
It doesn't matter what he requested. As it is being implemented now, is it a Muslim ban?
Okay. This is simple enough.
Premise: A Muslim ban means all Muslims are banned from entering the US.
Premise 2: Muslims can still enter the US from most countries.
Conclusion: This is not a ban on all Muslims.
This, my friends, is simple logic. Either refute premise 1 or 2, prove that the conclusion doesn't follow, or accept the conclusion.
87% of the world's Muslim's are not affected by this Executive Order. Pretty shaky is an understatement!No, I'd consider banning all but one Muslim a pretty clear Muslim ban. But considering that well over half the world's Muslims are still able to immigrate, calling this a Muslim Ban is pretty shaky. It's evident that the fact of their religion is secondary to their nationality.
So if the target was Muslims, why only put a ban on 7 countries that in total equal less than 12% of the world's Muslims? Does not compute.
So if the target was Muslims, why only put a ban on 7 countries that in total equal less than 12% of the world's Muslims? Does not compute.
If you shit on the floor 1 time, but normally you shit on the toilet, you still are the "floor shitter"
I have known an infamous floor shitter at one time in the past.Speaking from experience?
No, I'd consider banning all but one Muslim a pretty clear Muslim ban. But considering that well over half the world's Muslims are still able to immigrate, calling this a Muslim Ban is pretty shaky. It's evident that the fact of their religion is secondary to their nationality.
agreed. It is because Trump and Bannon are fundamentally retarded.
Looks like your attorney is so wrong it hurts as it's already been extensively established that Obama's action and Trump's action are not alike.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...mparing-trumps-and-obamas-immigration-restri/
Who was this quack, anyway?
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.You choose Politifact over an attorney? Your recent trend of choosing absolutely awful "experts" continues.
Trump and Obama's actions are not alike? Faulty reasoning. Trump's actions don't need to be exactly like Obama's. They just need to be in conformity with the law and prior court cases.
Fern
There is hypocrisy about the uproar about this. While I have no issues with people protesting or not liking this executive order, there has not been the same uproar when bans have been put in before.
You guys are cute. So, because Hair Fuhrer is ineffective and incompetent, and his muslim ban was very weak, very weak--like something a loser would do! It is no longer a muslim ban?
Funny!
Except, this is his muslim ban. No way around that. That's what it is.
What is it if it is not that? It's to defend us from terrorism? Lol. Try to tell me that this is an effective protection against terrorism.
Good thing we already know what it is: a muslim ban
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...sion-to-do-it-legally/?utm_term=.4b809593d35d
there you go. watch it again. Look at the Muslim Ban.
Again, the person that created this policy literally said that the goal was to ban Muslims but to get around constitutional problems they decided to target nationality.
Why do you feel safer? Do you know the number of Americans that have been killed in terrorist attacks from immigrants from those countries in the last 30 years?
Zero.
You choose Politifact over an attorney? Your recent trend of choosing absolutely awful "experts" continues.
Trump and Obama's actions are not alike? Faulty reasoning. Trump's actions don't need to be exactly like Obama's. They just need to be in conformity with the law and prior court cases.
Fern
Okay. So regardless of his alleged intentions, did he ban Muslims in fact or not?