Sacks 'n' Stuff Posted January 29, 2017 Share Posted January 29, 2017 3 hours ago, Kilmer17 said: But false equivalency! Correct Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted January 29, 2017 Share Posted January 29, 2017 Â Â Â Â 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PF Chang Posted January 29, 2017 Share Posted January 29, 2017 Dear President In Over His Head, please do not tweet about World War III... 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted January 29, 2017 Share Posted January 29, 2017 1 hour ago, Larry said: Â And they're right (as far as I know.) Â Â The rulings have simply stated that the feds can't deport the people they're not allowing into the country. Â (And some other things, like demanding that detainees be granted access to counsel. Â Despite twa's attempts to claim that denying that isn't prohibited.) Â Â That is not what I claimed, counsel cannot appoint itself. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted January 29, 2017 Share Posted January 29, 2017 3 hours ago, Kilmer17 said: It's more a complaint about the left wingers reaction to both.  Both are wrong.  But I don't recall massive protests when their guy was doing it.  They were very different things, done very different ways, and so very different responses. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted January 29, 2017 Share Posted January 29, 2017 22 minutes ago, PF Chang said: I don't know all of the details on this, but it seems like an important distinction that Obama's refugee ban was in response to a specific incident (finding two Iraqi al-Qaeda members that came in as refugees).  Trump's ban isn't just refugees and even includes green card holders.  I get that conservatives are sick of hearing "false equivalence!" about everything. But I really don't know what else to call it.  One big difference is they don't seem to even seem to be able to effectively communicate who it affects.  http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/29/politics/donald-trump-travel-ban-green-card-dual-citizens/  " Adding to the confusion, Trump administration officials seemed to at times contradict themselves during appearances on Sunday news shows. In mere minutes during an interview with NBC, White House chief of staff Reince Priebus said the order "doesn't affect" green card holders, then later said "of course" it affects green card holders from Iran, Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Libya, Yemen and Somalia -- the seven countries Trump has temporarily stop immigration from for 90 days."   Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoCalMike Posted January 29, 2017 Share Posted January 29, 2017 For those that called Obama the "divider in chief" I wonder how Trump stacks up to that a mere 10 days into his administration? 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted January 29, 2017 Author Share Posted January 29, 2017 So, just heard a Trump spokesperson say that the temp immigration ban has no religious components and the complaints are bull. He then went on to explain how t just because it gives Christians priorities and dictates that Muslims have to go through extra layers of scrutiny that doesn't mean it makes any determinations on the basis of religion.  They are not not really even trying, are they? 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted January 29, 2017 Share Posted January 29, 2017 7 minutes ago, NoCalMike said: For those that called Obama the "divider in chief" I wonder how Trump stacks up to that a mere 10 days into his administration?  He Trumped him in the primaries Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted January 29, 2017 Share Posted January 29, 2017 8 minutes ago, Burgold said: So, just heard a Trump spokesperson say that the temp immigration ban has no religious components and the complaints are bull. He then went on to explain how t just because it gives Christians priorities and dictates that Muslims have to go through extra layers of scrutiny that doesn't mean it makes any determinations on the basis of religion.  They are not not really even trying, are they? I cant figure out if they just thought that would fly, or if they were putting something out there that would get struck down to keep the rest in place.  Force people to attack the religious test component, eventually give it up (or lose in court), but keep the actual ban.  Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted January 29, 2017 Author Share Posted January 29, 2017 Just now, tshile said: I cant figure out if they just thought that would fly, or if they were putting something out there that would get struck down to keep the rest in place. Â Force people to attack the religious test component, eventually give it up (or lose in court), but keep the actual ban. Â It's not a religious ban because we're only banning Muslims from seven countries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted January 29, 2017 Share Posted January 29, 2017 Just now, Burgold said: It's not a religious ban because we're only banning Muslims from seven countries. Well, no.  They're banning everyone from 7 countries. Then doing thorough vetting of the people Jews and Christians get priority in the vetting  So they're banning everyone  Then letting some in easier than others  I could see them going to court and the courts saying - you can't give priority to Jews and Christians, and the trump admin going "ok, fine, we'll just ban everyone"   *shrug* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted January 29, 2017 Share Posted January 29, 2017 1 minute ago, Burgold said: It's not a religious ban because we're only banning Muslims from seven countries. Â Â Not even a ban since they are folk thru Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted January 29, 2017 Share Posted January 29, 2017 The "debate panel" on CNN was interesing... some points: 90+% of Muslims in the world are not affected (interesting justification...)  Trump supporter: the wife of the San Bernardino shooter was an immigrant  Someone against ban: to be fair, she would still get through because she wasn't from one of the 7  Trump supporter: yeah, that's why this is just the start. We need to do more  Crazy times.  Wife and I are putting together an escape from DC plan.  We walked around the trump hotel yesterday. Was a quiet day in DC yesterday... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinny21 Posted January 29, 2017 Share Posted January 29, 2017 Can't help feeling that Bannon is absolutely gleeful over this... well on the way to "blowing things up". Â Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted January 29, 2017 Share Posted January 29, 2017 By the way, for those of you not around here, looking at all the protesters... it's pretty cold outside... not exactly a nice day Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan T. Posted January 29, 2017 Share Posted January 29, 2017 Does anyone truly feel safer today as a result of this action? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted January 29, 2017 Share Posted January 29, 2017 3 minutes ago, Dan T. said: Does anyone truly feel safer today as a result of this action? Absolutely not.  For the first time my wife and I are concerned. Making plans on how to handle certain situations, etc.   Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hersh Posted January 29, 2017 Share Posted January 29, 2017 21 minutes ago, tshile said: The "debate panel" on CNN was interesing... some points: 90+% of Muslims in the world are not affected (interesting justification...)  Trump supporter: the wife of the San Bernardino shooter was an immigrant  Someone against ban: to be fair, she would still get through because she wasn't from one of the 7  Trump supporter: yeah, that's why this is just the start. We need to do more  Crazy times.  Wife and I are putting together an escape from DC plan.  We walked around the trump hotel yesterday. Was a quiet day in DC yesterday... I do think they will expand the ban. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedskinsFan44 Posted January 29, 2017 Share Posted January 29, 2017 (edited) 4 minutes ago, Hersh said: I do think they will expand the ban. But even if they do he has already shown a proclivity to make foreign policy decisions based on personal business interests.  Add:  I'm not so sure they want to piss off Saudi Arabia regardless. Edited January 29, 2017 by RedskinsFan44 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted January 29, 2017 Share Posted January 29, 2017 So, on CNN, they're saying Christians and Jews are not mentioned in the actual order. Â Instead what it says is that members of a 'minority' religion from those reasons, that are persecuted, are given priority. Â Little different, though I'm not going to argue with anyone suggesting that's code for Christians and jews. Â The interesting question in the CNN discussion is whether they'll consider shiites and sunis minorities (where they are such) or if it's just blanket 'islam' Â I'd be willing to take a bet on what the answer is... even if they weren't being malicious towards Muslims, Â I have zero reason to believe trump and his staff understand that shiites and sunies exist much less the differences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted January 29, 2017 Share Posted January 29, 2017 Â Â Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted January 29, 2017 Share Posted January 29, 2017 (edited) Whoops double post Edited January 29, 2017 by tshile Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redskins59 Posted January 29, 2017 Share Posted January 29, 2017 7 minutes ago, Hersh said: I do think they will expand the ban.  The question is, are they going to ban countries that have the ability to retaliate better? I am thinking Saudi Arabia (oil) and Pakistan(a nuclear power that shares Intelligence with us). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bearrock Posted January 29, 2017 Share Posted January 29, 2017 1 hour ago, twa said:  That is not what I claimed, counsel cannot appoint itself. But a court can fashion all types of remedies when it comes to ensuring appropriate access to legal counsel.  Judge Brinkema at the Eastern District specifically ordered the CBP to give lawyers access to detained individuals at Dulles airport (Read that again.  Give "lawyers" access). Blocking attorneys from seeing the detained individuals is a flagrant violation of the order.   Do we really have to debate this?  Should we start from the beginning and cover 1+1? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now