AG Yates has been relieved of her position by Trump administration

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sooooo what will it take for the naysayers to finally admit the USA is fascist now?

Boke1879 said:
How many can we check off yall?
qk0YlUV.jpg
Click to expand...
All of them. Heh.

International Iron Man said:
No, she can go to sleep tonight knowing she stood up for her beliefs, unlike a lot of GAF that couldn't do the same to their Trump voting relatives and friends.
Click to expand...
It seems that in every thread you try to take potshots at "GAF" (without ever naming names of course). It's pretty obnoxious, tbh.
 
Before anyone jump down my throat. I have to say. "Technically" I don't think it's a Muslim ban either. It's a shitty situation that shouldn't even be one.

But if this was truly a Muslim ban, wouldn't there be a lot more country affected and it would be a permanent ban until further notice?

I hate agreeing with Trump supporters, but this make sense unless there's a piece of information I'm missing. I've been fairly up to date on the information regarding this situation.

Once again, I don't think this should be happening. I'm just debating if Muslim ban is the correct term.
 
Zen Aku said:
Before anyone jump down my throat. I have to say. "Technically" I don't think it's a Muslim ban either. It's a shitty situation that shouldn't even be one.

But if this was truly a Muslim ban, wouldn't there be a lot more country affected and it would be a permanent ban until further notice?

I hate agreeing with Trump supporters, but this make sense unless there's a piece of information I'm missing. I've been fairly up to date on the information regarding this situation.

Once again, I don't think this should be happening. I'm just debating if Muslim ban is the correct term.
Click to expand...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ays-and-ordered-a-commission-to-do-it-legally

QED
 
Zen Aku said:
Before anyone jump down my throat. I have to say. "Technically" I don't think it's a Muslim ban either. It's a shitty situation that shouldn't even be one.

But if this was truly a Muslim ban, wouldn't there be a lot more country affected and it would be a permanent ban until further notice?

I hate agreeing with Trump supporters, but this make sense unless there's a piece of information I'm missing. I've been fairly up to date on the information regarding this situation.

Once again, I don't think this should be happening. I'm just debating if Muslim ban is the correct term.
Click to expand...

Giuliani literally said (on live TV) that Trump went to him asking for a Muslim ban and how to make one "legally".

It's
a
Muslim
ban

That they targeted "only" 7 countries and as a result a small portion of all Muslims worldwide only makes it a shitty Muslim ban. But it's a Muslim ban.
 
Kalpnisis said:
There is no "muslim ban" [sic], but thanks for the disinformation just the same.

Perhaps you are referring to the temporary immigration ban affecting seven foreign-States?

7 States out of the 51 Muslim-majority States is a mere 13% of the total.

Also, note that there are conflicts currently in the majority of those States.
Click to expand...

You should just call it what it is. Why call it one thing in public and then go home and call it something else? With your guy as President, you don't have to be so secretive anymore. Maybe you need a little history about the context of this ban. You are forgetting when Trump ran as a candidate, here is what he said.
p6Nxf0L.jpg
Click to expand...

We all know why the word "Muslim" is not used in describing it anymore. Just ask Rudy who helped him make it "legal";)

The truth is whether you call it a "temporary immigration ban" , "Muslim ban", or "geographic ban", it intentionally singles out a religion. All the meaninglessness statistics in the world won't disguise that. The fact that you are barring only a portion of Muslims doesn't matter because you are still targeting a religion. It doesn't matter how you frame it. But you already know that, since Trump is doing what he promised. Here's a secret, the rest of us know too;)
 
Zen Aku said:
Before anyone jump down my throat. I have to say. "Technically" I don't think it's a Muslim ban either. It's a shitty situation that shouldn't even be one.

But if this was truly a Muslim ban, wouldn't there be a lot more country affected and it would be a permanent ban until further notice?

I hate agreeing with Trump supporters, but this make sense unless there's a piece of information I'm missing. I've been fairly up to date on the information regarding this situation.

Once again, I don't think this should be happening. I'm just debating if Muslim ban is the correct term.
Click to expand...

He's still trying for the pretence of legality. An outright muslim ban would obviously violate the equal protection and first amendment (religion) clauses.

this does too, of course, but it's coached in language and terms that don't in appearance even if they do in impact
 
I've said this on other threads, but aren't instances like this EXACTLY the reason America has the second amendment?

For the security of a free state? It's been abused to within an inch of its life for decades, so isn't now the time to use it as fit for purpose?

I'm in UK BTW, so correct me if l'm wrong.
 
Zen Aku said:
Before anyone jump down my throat. I have to say. "Technically" I don't think it's a Muslim ban either. It's a shitty situation that shouldn't even be one.

But if this was truly a Muslim ban, wouldn't there be a lot more country affected and it would be a permanent ban until further notice?

I hate agreeing with Trump supporters, but this make sense unless there's a piece of information I'm missing. I've been fairly up to date on the information regarding this situation.

Once again, I don't think this should be happening. I'm just debating if Muslim ban is the correct term.
Click to expand...
It's a selectively-targeted Muslim ban. One that targets poor countries with no trade value and oil to appropriate and not ones that include Trump business ventures and actual terror cells that have waged acts of terror on American soil.

That doesn't mean it's not a Muslim ban. It's still that. Even Giuliani is on record as saying it's one. It's just one rife with hypocrisy for excluding Saudi Arabia and other nations.
 
Man, that Sessions Q&A segment is just.....lol if the irony isn't completely apparent.

Sure, some/a lot Republican base will explain it away as being 'She should have said no to Obama more' and completely miss the point, but at least it's on record.
 
Yeah I just read the WP article, they're going to deny Trump ever say the phrase "Muslim ban"

Unless we get it in audio or document. They'll keep banging their drums that it's not racist!
 
Do we really need to argue amongst ourselves over this? Seriously? Let people call it what they want so long as they have the facts right. It's easier for me personally to call it a Muslim Ban as shorthand and everyone knows what I'm referring to but in no way would I get mad if someone calls it something else. There's absolutely no reason to get into it with people who agree with us because they're not wanting to use the same terminology.
 
mAcOdIn said:
Do we really need to argue amongst ourselves over this? Seriously? Let people call it what they want so long as they have the facts right. It's easier for me personally to call it a Muslim Ban as shorthand and everyone knows what I'm referring to but in no way would I get mad if someone calls it something else. There's absolutely no reason to get into it with people who agree with us because they're not wanting to use the same terminology.
Click to expand...
No one is arguing.. people are just trying to help me understand the situation a civilized manner and I appreciate that. I know emotions are running high, but you gotta chill man.
 
It's a Muslim ban and it's fascism. But her emails

Lego Boss said:
I've said this on other threads, but aren't instances like this EXACTLY the reason America has the second amendment?

For the security of a free state? It's been abused to within an inch of its life for decades, so isn't now the time to use it as fit for purpose?

I'm in UK BTW, so correct me if l'm wrong.
Click to expand...

As a minority who has always been against the NRA and guns, fuck it I'm taking self defense classes AND arming myself as soon as the anti-LGBT EO comes (and it's coming, don't believe a word they say about how it's not). I don't know if I'll ever feel completely safe again, but I'm gonna feel safer than I do right now. I have to. I need to.
 
Lego Boss said:
I've said this on other threads, but aren't instances like this EXACTLY the reason America has the second amendment?

For the security of a free state? It's been abused to within an inch of its life for decades, so isn't now the time to use it as fit for purpose?

I'm in UK BTW, so correct me if l'm wrong.
Click to expand...
The people overwhelmingly for the second amendment love what's going on here. They're also, amusingly, usually the ones most afraid of other groups and strongly for unwavering patriotism. Their definition of a "free state's" been weird for a while, they support the right to protest but if you do you're a loser and need a job, flag burning should be banned, military and police should be idolized, patriotism should not be earned by the government but freely given by the citizen, they're for local and State right's until they clash with big business, they're against safe spaces but want to turn the entire landmass of the US into their safe space, in short, they don't want a free state, they want a state for them. The only thing Trump could do to get them on our side would be for Trump to try and take their guns or enact Sharia Law.
Zen Aku said:
No one is arguing.. people are just trying to help me understand the situation a civilized manner and I appreciate that. I know emotions are running high, but you gotta chill man.
Click to expand...
I mean moreso them, not you. I think you're totally fine. This is a ban targeting Muslims but I see where one would rather not call it a Muslim ban. In the end it's all semantics, it's nefarious enough as it stands without being a full on Muslim ban. Hell, one of the reasons I'm cool with not calling it a Muslim Ban is what would we call it then if he did implement an honest to God full on Muslim Ban, a Super Muslim Ban?
 
Sysgen said:
Yes we do. Applies to all. More like Lol Washington Post used for contextual purposes.
Click to expand...

Don't think I can't see what shit you're trying to peddle, even slipping in the "but Obama!" Non-argument.

Trump called for Muslim bans, yes, Muslim bans, throughout his campaign. Here's an EO that specifically targets Muslims. Here's the proof from someone who helped write the order that this came from Trump wanting a "Legal" ban. But it's the Post taking it out of context (which by the way, you actually haven't said what is out of context about it).

Sure bud, we believe ya!
 
Magni said:
Are you ok?
Click to expand...

It's a 90 day moratorium applied to every citizen of the Obama administration's 7 designated countries until the vetting procedures are updated. Take a chill pill. Under Obama and through political correctness social media posts were not even being looked at to determine the motivation of an individual for entry into the country.

The EO is an extension of HR 158 signed into law by Obama.

(Sec. 3) An alien shall be ineligible for program participation who:

has been present, at any time on or after March 1, 2011, in Iraq or Syria, in a country designated as one that has repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism, or in any other country or area of concern designated by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS); and
regardless of whether the alien is a national of a program country, is a national of Iraq or Syria, a country designated as a country that has repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism, or any other country or area of concern.
Click to expand...
 
Zen Aku said:
Before anyone jump down my throat. I have to say. "Technically" I don't think it's a Muslim ban either. It's a shitty situation that shouldn't even be one.

But if this was truly a Muslim ban, wouldn't there be a lot more country affected and it would be a permanent ban until further notice?

I hate agreeing with Trump supporters, but this make sense unless there's a piece of information I'm missing. I've been fairly up to date on the information regarding this situation.

Once again, I don't think this should be happening. I'm just debating if Muslim ban is the correct term.
Click to expand...

It's does nothing to protect people and the extreme vetting argument is rubbish as extreme vetting is already in place from these countries, up to 2 years worth of checks are carried out. It's an attempt to normalize this form of blanket banning with most likely the intention to expand upon it, that's the greatest fear and goes against core principles of western ideals of equality.

You need to strike the ideology, which in the past is responsible for previous attacks with homegrown militants. This ban wouldn't have prevented Boston or Florida.
 
Sysgen said:
Congrats, out of context and part of the left's hysteria. 90 days until our vetting procedures are enhanced. Applicable to all within the Obama administration's 7 designated countries.
Click to expand...

Yes, designated for a completely different reason and with a completely different aim. People from those countries were NOT denied entry, as an amendment to VWP they just had to request a visa, like citizens of many other countries of the world.

This "Obama did it too!" rhetoric is shameful and has to stop. Why don't Trump supporters open a book or a newspaper for once? That would benefit us all.
 
Jumeira said:
It's does nothing to protect people and the extreme vetting argument is rubbish as extreme vetting is already in place from these countries, up to 2 years worth of checks are carried out. It's an attempt to normalize this form of blanket banning with most likely the intention to expand upon it, that's the greatest fear and goes against core principles of western ideals of equality.

You need to strike the ideology, which in the past is responsible for previous attacks with homegrown militants. This ban wouldn't have prevented Boston or Florida.
Click to expand...

That's a weak argument. The purpose is to improve vetting procedures so perhaps Boston or Florida would not have happened.
 
Necro900 said:
Yes, designated for a completely different reason and with a completely different aim. People from those countries were NOT denied entry, as an amendment to VWP they just had to request a visa, like citizens of many other countries of the world.

This "Obama did it too!" rhetoric is shameful and has to stop. Why don't Trump supporters open a book or a newspaper for once? That would benefit us all.
Click to expand...

No one said Obama did it too. I said the countries came from the list he used for HR 158.
 
Jumeira said:
It's an attempt to normalize this form of blanket banning
Click to expand...

I can agree with what you posted and honestly this is what I'm afraid of the most. It's just a small step to make sure that they'll be able to normalize this... Like what's next? Rounding up Muslim for "interview"? That shit is scary.
 
Sysgen said:
It's a 90 day moratorium applied to every citizen of the Obama administration's 7 designated countries until the vetting procedures are updated. Take a chill pill. Under Obama and through political correctness social media posts were not even being looked at to determine the motivation of an individual for entry into the country.

The EO is an extension of HR 158 signed into law by Obama.
Click to expand...

Might want to look up the context of Obama's original law, why he did it, why the target countries were chosen, and what exactly was being implemented.

Since, you know, you're all about context and getting the full picture, no sense in presenting half the story , yeah?
 
Sysgen said:
It's a 90 day moratorium applied to every citizen of the Obama administration's 7 designated countries until the vetting procedures are updated. Take a chill pill. Under Obama and through political correctness social media posts were not even being looked at to determine the motivation of an individual for entry into the country.

The EO is an extension of HR 158 signed into law by Obama.
Click to expand...

You do realize there's a difference between barring citizens of certain countries from a visa-free program, and barring citizens of certain countries from getting visas - period - right?

I was against HR 158 (a bill that went through Congress, not an executive order that was announced without even letting the related departments know ahead of time), but this is on a whole other order of magnitude.
 
Sysgen said:
No one said Obama did it too. I said the countries came from the list he used for HR 158.
Click to expand...

This is circular logic. Either its an extension of what Obama signed into law (which is what you just claimed) or it isn't.

Comparing alterations to the Visa waiver program to this is highly inappropriate.
 
EatinOlives said:
Might want to look up the context of Obama's original law, why he did it, why the target countries were chosen, and what exactly was being implemented.

Since, you know, you're all about context and getting the full picture, no sense in presenting half the story , yeah?
Click to expand...

Do you not understand the word extension?
 
Sysgen said:
That's a weak argument. The purpose is to improve vetting procedures so perhaps Boston or Florida would not have happened.
Click to expand...
I don't think you understand. There has been no foreign attack on US soil since 9/11, the process in place seems to be working without giving up on freedoms. And no, vetting wouldn't have prevented Florida, Boston as they were American.
 
Sysgen said:
Do you not understand the word extension?
Click to expand...

It seems you do not. If HR 158 was set to have expired this month, and Trump had signed an EO to keep it enacted for another year, that would have been an extension.

That's not what Trump's EO is.

edit: oh, the troll is gone. Bye.
 
Is USA Russia now, but in English?

I am trying to hold onto the real points of difference and they are shrinking like an iceberg south of the polar circle.
 
It must feel so good to be fired by Donald Trump for standing up to principle. And of course the administration goes over the top with their statement.
 
So basically every communication will be written just to appease existing supporters "look at him flush out those traitors. Making Us great again" and every move will be to set up a boardroom type environment where everyone supports CEO and anyone who might not it removed? Yup if you're in the majority who didn't vote for Trump or back him you really should be very, very worried.

Judges are not supposed to be automatic yes men for the president and his inner circle. There's not even supposed to be the kind of inner circle being set up here with Bannon and co in the first place.

It seems obvious they're working around the system and weakening the system to skew power in their favour and banking on keeping core supporters happy and disregarding the will or opinions of the rest of the populace.

Of course all political parties and leaders do this to an extent but this feels like an fast move to push way beyond normal boundaries to the extent fundamentals of their own constitution and society are being ignored or trampled over without care or concern.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Apple's closed ecosystem has been broken by Vivo
21
459
Days like these... replied
What has been your song of the year so far?
38
312
Power Pro replied
A new color has been created
31
977
Redneckerz replied
Trump has declassified JFK files
2 3
144
11K
Lord Panda replied
You’re a wizard Harry! Harry Potter, Ronald Weasley and Hermoine Granger has been cast for HBO’s reboot.
2 3
132
2K
NeoIkaruGAF replied
Top Bottom