Nov 8, 2016 - The lesser of two evils?
- Thread starter TX Redman
- Start date
- Status
What's amazing about Trump is that he's both a diabolical genius who worked with KGB haxors to subvert the democratic process and in doing so outwitted the most qualified person to ever seek the presidency and also a nitwit. Not since George Bush have we seen such a combination of evil genius and unprincipled stupid.
Ah, yes. Every time Trump does something unbecoming (or stupid), simply choose a Hillary or Obama blunder and drag it back onto the table. It can effectively absolve Mr. Trump from any responsibility. This is because anything bad is okay, as long as we can compare it to a perceived worse.
Still, for the record, it is my opinion that President Obama and the Justice Department alarmingly overstepped in regards to James Rosen.
That's backwards. The whole things is enforceable except against persons with bona fide relationship to the US.
"The injunctions remain in place only with respect to parties similarly situated to Doe, Dr. Elshikh, and Hawaii.
In practical terms, this means that §2(c) may not be enforced against foreign nationals who have a credible claim
of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States. All other foreign nationals are subject to
the provisions of EO–2."
Class of 72
Active member
![URL]](http://[URL]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CunH0HtVYAAvZt2.jpg[/URL])
beast of the east
Active member
Actually, by voting 9-0, the Supreme Court, even the most far left liberal justices, who often vote on preference and not on the application of existing Constitutional law, the Court asserted that President Trump was well within his authority to implement a limited temporary ban on immigration from 6 primarily Muslim countries. It was a decisive slap down to the lower courts, who in far left jurisdictions struck down the ban irrespective of the law.
Actually, by voting 9-0, the Supreme Court, even the most far left liberal justices, who often vote on preference and not on the application of existing Constitutional law, the Court asserted that President Trump was well within his authority to implement a limited temporary partial ban on immigration from 6 primarily Muslim countries. It was a decisive slap down to the lower courts, who in far left jurisdictions struck down the ban irrespective of the law.
Maybe. like our President, I am suffering from poor impulse control.
Maybe. like our President, I am suffering from poor impulse control.
Or maybe you just suffer from poor reading comprehension. Let's explore.
Can you explain the difference between these two sentences
"President Trump was well within his authority to implement a limited temporary ban on immigration"
"President Trump was well within his authority to implement a limited temporary partial ban on immigration"
if, as various dictionaries maintain, limited and partial are synonyms?
beast of the east
Active member
I think it's a much better discussion to weigh the merits of restricting immigration (Trump's "extreme vetting") rather than discuss whether the order is legal or not.
Not surprisingly, I believe that our number one responsibility is protecting Americans on our soil, in every way possible above those who would visit or desire to live here. That means jobs first, including training for skilled labor positions and giving Americans the opportunity to do the jobs "that nobody wants" (incredibly insulting to those unemployed). It also means making our country safe from those who would come here to do harm.
Our history is tainted with armchair quarterbacking after the fact. People continually speak about what a mistake Japanese interment camps, but also disregard the fact that the reason our planes were out of hangars and iin plain view to be attacked by air at Pearl Harbor is that there were credible fears that Japanese loyalists living in Hawaii may sabotage them in the relative secrecy of hangars. People never mention this but Italian Americans born in Italy were not allowed within X miles of the coastline while Italy was part of Axis powers - even the great Joe DiMaggio's parents could not operate the family restaurant near the wharf in San Francisco.
You can debate the merits and humiliation of these programs, but the fact is that you CAN debate them. that we were at war and American leadership must protect its citizenry. Perhaps neither ethnic group did not pose a credible threat, perhaps they did, but the reality is that espionage did exist within our borders and the government was acting in the perceived best interest of Americans as a whole.
I do not buy for even a millisecond the notion that restricting travel until we can ascertain that an individual poses no threat to Americans is somehow radicalizing extremist Muslims. I do think by perpetuating this false notion actually riles up the crazies, much like the liberal funded BLM movement, which had a direct correlation to cops being slaughtered while on patrol by crazy, angry individuals.
By and large Americans want what many Muslims want who are living in countries in the Middle East - peace, prosperity, and the threat of radical groups like Al Qaeda, ISIS, and the Taliban destroyed or dismantled. Restricting travel until a reasonable background check can be conducted helps keep our country safe from outside terrorists. It's not perfect - nothing is. But we must do everything within our control to stop those who would do harm here and abroad by planning and executing carnage on innocent victims.
- Status