"It's not a Muslim ban! It's working out very nicely!"

Post Reply New Topic

Muslim Ban overturned by Bush-appointed federal judge, although some of the specific consequences are unclear. This outcome was completely predictable, so I see no reason to act like the administration is genuinely surprised.

Lots of information in Trump's response Tweets, which basically boil down to FAKE JUDGE. Judges won't back down as quietly as Senators, so this should be exciting.

why? let me count the ways...

*their insistence that I "jerk myself up by my bootstraps" or "cowboy up" and become like them or else
*their insistence that i'm just insufficiently motivated to become "normal" like they are
*their invalidation of me and my problems, their insistence that i'm just pretending to be disabled
*their oft-stated intent to rob me of my social security and medicare that I paid for
*their violent statements such as "WE might have to kill him next time" if I continue to protest the $#!+ they do to me
*their tendency to want to shove their religion down my throat under force of law
*their desire to disenfranchise me by taking away my citizen's right to vote because I refuse to vote GOP [by gutting the voting rights act]
*their warmongering/unquestioning support of warmongers in power
*their general authoritarianism/worship of money and power, their desire to lord it over me and mine
*their wanting to poison me and mine because I live in the poor parts [gutting EPA antipollution regs] [like what they're doing at DAP, for example]
*their demanding that I cannot, if I so choose, become MTF and use the bathroom I need to use
*their hypocritical blue-nosing and invasion of my privacy
*their disenfranchisement of me because I don't conform to their sexual identity/preference
*their wanting to financially ruin me if I protest the $#!+ they are shoving down my throat [SLAPP suits]
*their propensity for shoving down my throat their "alternate facts" [GD LIES], IOW "who ya gonna believe- me or your lyin' eyes?"

these are just a few reasons to fear amuuuurican righties.

He's not too happy about it. His attitude seems to be that all of a sudden right after he's sworn in, it's time to hit the panic button and put an emergency ban in place. It seems to me since the US has gone 15 without any significant Islamic terrorist attack national security has been pretty good. If he insists on a tighter vetting system, looks like he'll have to put one in place without a ban.

The EO was legal and vetted as such by the DOJ, this is judicial activism from the liberal 9th circuit. The law is pretty clear too with a lot of precedence so it will be reversed.

In a right wing authoritarian model in 2017 all dissenters like us would be already on a database in pine gap military base for monitoring. I wouldn't be surprised if there is a cyber virus being customised to inflitrate computers of anti-Trump people...nice way to teach us a lesson for daring to dissent

Is Trump testing the power of his executive decisions? obviously some restructuring is on the way of US constitutional law...a ban on travel is both intellectually and theoretically diametrically in opposition to free market economics in relation to movement of people which doesn't sit well for most republicans

But whose fault is that? Trump certainly didn't discourage racist support all that much during his campaign, and I don't recall seeing everyday Trump supporters speaking out against racists.

This is intended to consolidate the support of his base, as well as do things that he and his people genuinely want to do. Pushing everything to happen as quickly as possible lets the supporters ignore any problems, and make his adversaries heads spin. Like Wanda Sykes said, if you don't stay focused, you'll show up at the airport with a sign that says Keep Your Pipeline Out of My Vagina.

It seems like you are advocating that all Trump supporters should be verbally and psychically attacked.

Last edited by EzraS on 04 Feb 2017, 8:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Federal agencies have now unwound the entire ban, and reinstated visas that were cancelled.

The Trump administration has a right to be mad. Characterizing judges doing their jobs as outrageous betrayals of America is going too far. They rolled it back, but they don't have much sympathy when other people make retractions. It's also Trump's standard response: he is Real America incarnate, and opposition to him is obvious treason. You're fired, you should resign, you should shut up.

Leahy finally said it, Trump seems intent on precipitating a constitutional crisis. I think Trump is deeply ignorant, but not stupid; certainly not stupid enough to do this by accident.

I don't see where exactly you get that impression, looks like an observation to me...and fairly accurate as well. How many trump supporters did or do actively speak out against racism/white supremacy among some of his supporters? How does pointing out they didn't seem very concerned with putting a stop to any of that advocating verbal or physical attacks towards anyone?

I still have not gotten an answer to how much risk people will accept from refugees. I suspect the answer is none, but people don't want to admit it.

The most rational measure seems like refugees should be radicalized at a lower rate than people born in the US who commit terrorism-related crimes. If we can beat that rate with our vetting program, then refugees are less dangerous than our own people, so I can't see any justification for trying to reduce the level below that.

If no level of risk is acceptable, then no refugees can be allowed in at all. I don't think people support that openly, but they will support a policy that does the same thing if they let themselves be ruled by fear.

I think there's a general fear in the western world about immigration from non-European countries and the social change in the demographics and jobs/housing/employment.

If you then add the dimension of refugees then there's a perception of unfetted entry of people who will "swamp" the western world. How do I know? just look at television, whether it be Australia or the US our TV soaps, music and dramas, our newstations are all representative of an idealised view of ourselves as manicured and homogeneous society. Even alternative culture in the west is essentially the same thing wrapped in different packaging. Emos, Goths, dreadlocks as well as surfers, sports clubs whatever is still essentially homogeneous in nature.

All of these don't represent the multicultural changing face of society, it seems everyone is trying to escape from this inevitable end to image of the old western society...So I know what people really think about refugees...

It seems to me that over the discourse there's always some retort in arguing for it, rather then condemning it. Pretty much like you just displayed, dancing around the issue rather than addressing it head on.

As to your question of "How many trump supporters did or do actively speak out against racism/white supremacy among some of his supporters?" I'd say the majority don't support it and do speak out against it, where they believe it exists, rather then where their accusers say it exists.

It seems to me that because Trump or whoever didn't bother to go out of their way to formally publicly denounce some small lunatic fringe group in a boardroom chanting "hail our victory", it implies they support said lunatic fringe. This is adding guilty by way of omission to guilty by association. I think most likely it was either not bothering to take the lunatic fringe seriously and or not wanting to give them the attention they're seeking. In fact they're getting all their publicity from the left.

Another thing I'll ask along these lines is, I saw plenty of rioters and anarchist during the inauguration, but where were the neo-Nazis and the like holding up signs and waving flags? I mean if Trump supposedly has such a large following of them, where were they that day? Aside from punched out Richard Spencer and his tiny following.

Last edited by EzraS on 04 Feb 2017, 11:13 pm, edited 2 times in total.

I happily admit to none. I also don't understand this modern dogma that the only moral response to a refugee crisis is to bring them to a country thousands of miles away from their place of origin and let them set up shop for the rest of their lives, often at great economic expense. Traditionally, refugees would stop at the first safe haven they land in. Traditionally, refugees would go home when the war is over. Not today for some reason.

A perfectly sane and moral response is to help countries (like Turkey with regards to the Syrian war) set up clean, safe refugee camps (remember them?) for the refugees to live in temporarily. Make sure they have enough food, water and clothing, hire local security to maintain law and order, hire teachers to help keep the children reasonably educated and train any grown men in construction, agriculture and other useful skills which will be desperately needed in a country ravaged by war.

I have no doubt this would work out much cheaper in the long run too.

I agree with this and I have often wondered the same thing. Why flocking to America is supposed to be the only remedy, rather than fixing the problems where they exist. It seems like the reason migrating to America is so much more preferable, is because nothing is really being done to keep their country from being a rat hole.