For one day then the court system stepped in as designed. Hardly a wide spread attack on immigrants in general as claimed. Besides many, possibly a majority, would agree that Islamic immigration is highly problematic and undesirable. Either way, the claim that he has attacked any appreciable number of legal immigrants is complete hog wash. Stick to what the man actually has done, there is plenty of material for you to work with, rather than making shit up or being misleading to the point of deception.
Moving the goal posts. He attacked them. He didn't design or want the courts to come to their defense.
Claiming there is any wide spread attack on "immigrants" simply is a lie. You know, I know it, the only difference between us is I am honest enough to admit it
Horse shit. Banning people from terrorism prone countries is not in any way, shape, or form a wife spread attack on immigrants. The only problem with the order is that it did not go far enough at least from the point of view of anyone who actually cares about reducing terrorism in the country. Every Muslim is a potential terrorist and by reducing the number of potential terrorists you reduce the terrorist threat. This is self evident. You can keep trying to pretend actions to reduce future terrorism is some how an attack on all immigrants but that is just a lie. A complete total lie.
Welp, there you have it. The fact that the world isn't a smoldering ruin really makes that point moot, but unfortunately you just can't reason with a bigoted alcoholic.
so let me walk through this.... Trump acts....>....court says GTFO with this shit...> Trump bitches and appeals....>...another court says "fuck off" and you say "it's all good because his fuck up only lasted a day before someone stopped him" And conclude from that that we ought to talk about things he's actually done wrong? Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.
the vast majority of recent terroristic acts or attempts were perpetrated by native born "Christian" white men, clearly that means all white men are potential terrorists.
It is pretty clear you do not know the definition of terrorism. Hint: Not all acts of violence are terrorism as terrorism has a political goal which it is trying to advance. A crazy going on a shooting spree is not a terrorist unless it is specifically in support of a well defined political goal. Also you just plain factually wrong as around 90% of all terrorist attacks world wide are carried out by muslims. You can keep trying to play games trying to redefine terrorism beyond all recognition but really that just makes you look dishonest and clueless.
well yeah, damn, I didn't know that a Southern Redneck wasn't blowing people up in Jaktara or some shit.You are not so stupid (appearances to the contrary) to not realize I was speaking of the U.S. Now - simple test - Was Dylan Roof committing a terrorist act, or no?
So, in other words "we we ignore most of the data and only look at a cherry picked set my conclusion is OK". Yeah, except the real world doesn't work that way and it is dumb when the climate denialists try to ignore data and it is dumb when you do it. The fact is terrorism is mostly an Islamic problem. Fact. Also much of what you are trying to pretend is some how terrorism simply isn't according to the standard definition of terrorism. Also a fact.
It's one of the definitions. Not the only one. A street gang can be considered terrorist. A person who kills people on church by bombing it or shooting people can be considered a terrorist. Its just not common to use the term. But they certainly are DOMESTIC TERRORIST. Terrorism - the systemic use of terror as a means of coercion.
In the USA, there is a new crime on the books. Making terrorist threat. You don't have to have a political goal to be charged. Just attempt to blow up a school or even threaten to do it. There are many ways to be charged.