Until they do it to us. Then it’s terrorism.
[quote=“the_bear, post:165, topic:157785, full:true”]Someone please tell me this is a troll. “The game plan was to catch would-be terrorists off guard when they might be out of the country until a judge interfered”. That’s not interference. That’s the rule of law, that’s the system of checks and balances that ensures that even if a complete idiot is voted in as president there’s still a means to prevent him doing whatever the fuck he wants to.
[/quote]
No, this is politics as usual, but much more animated against this president than I’ve ever seen. Our courts are based on English common law, judges are supposed to refer to precedent, but this judge is just telling his own opinions in his head. It was an improper ruling, and he’s just trying to resist for political gains, throw anything at the wall to see what sticks – being so improperly done, Trump could have ignored it, if he weren’t so eager to show respect to the courts as a new president.
How is this different from Trump? He’s not banning them, but there was a 90-day delay in processing, because Obama wasnt vetting them very well, they needed to be revetted. This is no different than Obama procedurally.
[quote=“Brianjones, post:167, topic:157785, full:true”]The judge calls it here though…so fucking embarrassing to be Trumps lackey and have more than two brain cells. Humiliation.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XxFFYz23HF0
[/quote]
The judge says its his duty to make sure the Executive branch actions are rationally based. No, it’s his duty to make sure something is Constitutional or comports with current law. The courts are not arbiters of rationality, or he’s just pulling rabbits out of his hat, and his job becomes more subjective than objective – what is the standard for rational? – the Executive branch can do stupid stuff as long as its Constitutional and legal. Does this rhetoric really fool people, are people so ignorant about how government works?
That’s true, but it’s more than that. Due process applies to American citizens. The U.S. Constitution safeguards the rights of Americans, not others. Not that we don’t care about the rights of others, but technically, legally, the Constitution (and due process) is about American citizens and their rights.
Wow! That’s even bigger stuff than what Trump came up with so far.
The American Constitution safeguards the rights of the people living in America.
The American Constitution doesn’t apply anywhere outside the US, that’s probably one of the biggest misconception the US has.
However, there must be somewhere some lines what America is about.
Once you are inside the US everyone is protected by US law, or can you just shoot foreigners there.
Not yet? Maybe soon!
How? The people still were processed on a case by case basis thus avoiding unnecessary hardship.
Processed by Hellfire missile on a case by case basis to avoid the unnecessary hardship of adding to the headcount in Gulagtanamo.
So I heard there’s going to be a benefit fundraiser for the victims of the Bowling Green Massacre.
Headliners are Milli Vanilli.
1 Like
Girl you know it’s true! Oh, wait…more fake news.
Why you gotta yank my chain like that? I’ve been waiting for their reunion tour for decades…
Yes, there may be differences in minutiae of executive orders. But the original premise that Trump was banning people while Obama wasn’t is entirely false.
The reason for “unnecessary” hardships was because it was unannounced. If Trump said two weeks in advance what he was doing, all the bad guys would hurry up in the country before that time. It had to be a surprise. None of this would have been necessary if Obama were properly vetting them with a wary eye particularly on preventing terrorists.
But that would be racist!
The Constitution is a document, a pact between the government and the governed, limiting the power of the US government towards its citizens, the governed. We don’t govern the world, we aren’t the world government. The US can do many things outside the USA to non-citizens that it can’t do inside USA to citizens, which is why Lincoln was able to declare southern (but not northern) slaves free (against our laws at the time) and the army freed them wherever them went because the South were rebels and therefore outside the US and not technically within the umbrella of the Constitution anymore.
Even so, we still have laws that are extra-constitutional and not the less important for being so. No we don’t practice murder inside our borders just because it’s not mentioned in the Constitution: It’s the law. The Constitution isn’t all our laws wrapped up in a bow.
But the Constitution does have somethings to say about action overseas – it gives Congress the right to declare war and to develop trade policies and forge alliances and of course spend money. Trump would have to work with them to do these things.
Obama let in hundreds of terrorists just like that and there were hundreds of terror attacks on American soil because of that… oh wait.
Still in denial about San Bernardino and Orlando?
Well, he sort of hinted at it about a year or two in advance. Risky, but necessary to secure electoral victory.
The inconvenienced people ought to have made alternative plans after November 8.
A lot of these people probably believed the talking heads on TV who said there was no chance Trump would fulfill any of his campaign promises.
[quote=“hannes, post:194, topic:157785, full:true”]Obama let in hundreds of terrorists just like that and there were hundreds of terror attacks on American soil because of that… oh wait.
[/quote]Well, we don’t know how many terrorists he let in, which is partially why Trump wanted the holdover, so we can better establish that… but we don’t have to have one hundred terrorist attacks before we realize we got a problem.
Just two terrorist acts in the last 4 months by Somalia refugees vetted by Obama is quite enough thank you.
St. Cloud, Minnesota, September 17, 2016. Dahir Ahmed Adan, a 20-year-old Somali refugee, began hacking at people with a steak knife at a Minnesota mall, injuring nine people before he was shot dead by off-duty police officer Jason Falconer. The FBI said numerous witnesses heard Adan yelling “Allahu akbar!” and “Islam! Islam!” during the rampage. He also asked potential victims if they were Muslims before inflicting wounds in their heads, necks, and chests. The FBI believe he had recently become self-radicalized. (As the Daily Wire highlighted, the Minneapolis Star Tribune attempted to blame “anti-Muslim tensions” for his murderous actions.)
Columbus, Ohio, November 28, 2016. Abdul Razak Ali Artan, an ISIS-inspired 20-year-old Somali refugee who had been granted permanent legal residence in 2014 after living in Pakistan for 7 years, attempted to run over his fellow Ohio State students on campus. After his car was stopped by a barrier, he got out of the vehicle and began hacking at people with a butcher knife before being shot dead by a campus police officer. He injured 11 people, one critically. ISIS took credit for the attack, describing Artan as their “soldier.” Just three minutes before his rampage, Artan posted a warning to America on Facebook that the “lone wolf attacks” will continue until America “give[s] peace to the Muslims.” He also praised deceased al-Qaeda cleric Anwar Al-Awlaki as a “hero.”
Ah we don’t know how many of the Japanese will turn traitor so we’d better round em up and put em in camps just in case. Women and children too. Any of them could be dangerous.
Sorry got the eras mixed up.
We’d better start rounding up people with guns while we’re at it. Any of them could be dangerous. Probably better to keep them out of the cities anyway.
While you’re at it could probably keep those radical police away from the citizens, they tend to be associated with a lot of killing.
Pharmaceutical salesmen have been busy addicting millions of Americans with a high mortality rate, I think we should ask them to take their own medicine and that will solve the problem.
Keep America SafeTM
2 Likes
I won’t try to defend this one.[quote=“Brianjones, post:199, topic:157785”]
We’d better start rounding up people with guns while we’re at it. Any of them could be dangerous. Probably better to keep them out of the cities anyway.
While you’re at it could probably keep those radical police away from the citizens, they tend to be associated with a lot of killing.
Pharmaceutical salesmen have been busy addicting millions of Americans with a high mortality rate, I think we should ask them to take their own medicine and that will solve the problem.
[/quote]
All of these things are illegal and/or unconstitutional. Visa restrictions are neither illegal nor unconstitutional. Except maybe in Brian’s fevered imagination?