Words have meaning. If he hadn't spent the last year and a half demonizing Muslims and maybe waited more than a week after getting sworn in to ram this though as though he were peeping on his patent contestants, Trump might have had a bit more support in this. But those of us who have seen and experienced discrimination know bigots today aren't all stupid or arrogant enough to be blatant with language. Why do you think the GOP started getting tough on crime after the Civil Rights act was passed?
I dunno Seems the alt right has activated even the most moderate of the liberally inclined to show up in -17C to shout down those who'd enlist the support of white supremacist organizations like the Sons of Odin. More than 1,000 people participated in a counterdemonstration at Toronto City Hall Saturday against a “March for Freedom, Liberty and Justice,” organized by the Canadian Coalition of Concerned Citizens (CCCC). The CCCC marched against M-103, a parliamentary motion that commits the Legislature to fight against hatred, discrimination and prejudices, particularly against Muslims. The group believes the motion will put a chill on free speech. An Ontario Liberal backbencher, Iqra Khalid, brought forward the M-103 motion in Parliament last year. The Opposition tried to pass an amendment last month removing the word “Islamophobia” from the motion, but the Liberals used their majority to block the effort. The police made three arrests at Saturday's demonstrations. (RENE JOHNSTON) A similar anti-Islamophobia motion received unanimous support at Queen’s Park last week. The #PracticeSolidarity crowd showed up an hour ahead of the CCCC’s march, condemning the group’s “hate speech” and calling on the federal government and MPs to condemn those who “advocate hatred based on race, religion and gender.” The people that came to demonstrate against the CCCC march outnumbered the CCCC demonstrators by about 30 to one. Sgt. Mike Dicosola, of the Toronto police, said he estimated the crowd at 1,500 people. He said that 60 officers were called in to keep the peace. Tempers flared during the protest against Bill M1-03 at Nathan Phillips Square. (RENE JOHNSTON) The police made three arrests. One person was released, one arrest was for a warrant unrelated to the event and police had no details on the other by press time. Barbara Edwards, who helped organize the protest against M-103, declined to speak “to the Red Star,” but Jon Hammond, the Facebook administrator of the CCCC, said that M103 is “a gateway drug for the Muslim Brotherhood ... Next, it becomes a bill, then it becomes a law and then we’re a communist country.” Walied Khogali, with the Coalition Against White Supremacy and Islamophobia said those claiming this clash was about freedom of speech are being intellectually dishonest. “We live in the most multicultural city in the world. This is downtown Toronto, so folks who think it’s appropriate to come and promote hate outside of City Hall have something else coming,” he said. “We’re going to be vigilant and mobilize against people who promote hate every time.” Protesters destroy anti-immigration signs after the anti-hate groups chased anti-immigration protesters out of the Bill M-103 protests. (RENE JOHNSTON) This is not the first spontaneous counter protest to happen in Toronto. On Feb. 17, Never Again Canada, the CCCC and other groups held an anti-Muslim protest outside the Masjid Toronto mosque, an event investigated by police. Around 30 Toronto citizens came out to support the Muslim community on that occasion. A similar demonstration and counterdemonstration took place Saturday in Montreal. I'm somewhat embarrassed that Barb is an acquaintance from my neighbourhood and that her and her boyfriend are notorious for absurd ad hominems. Imagine Gturner as a middle aged white trash couple. They've even got a vendetta against the main minister at the local anglican church... claims that she runs militant antifa training or somme such nonsense. On the other hand, I'm pleased that the racists are being outnumbered up to and over 30:1 at these demo/counter demos.
Wow, three posts in a row, and all of them dumb as fuck. Dinner, mate, if you're gonna froth, edit your posts. Or are you carrying on an imaginary conversation with someone?
https://www.yahoo.com/news/latest-judge-trump-power-ban-foreign-travelers-014857177.html Another judge on the 9th circuit has already come out declaring that the recent ruling by one of his co-workers is not just wrong but illegal. Yep, a bad politically motivated ruling which will not stand. I am sure that will make Matt Hunter cry but he has no idea what he is talking about.
The GOP voted for the Civil Rights Act in higher percentages than the Dems. Back then they were more liberal. It would be more accurate to say that conservatives (ie, Southern rednecks) started getting tough on crime after the act, and this is when they started flocking from the Dems to the GOP.
From the link: "Bybee says judges cannot investigate the president's motive for the ban as along as he provides a bona fide and legitimate reason for it." Bona fide and legitimate reasons are relative to opinion. That's the entire crx of the issue. In the opinion of other judges, the president has failed to demonstrate that the ban will have any effect on national security. He has, however, stated repeatedly and publicly, an interest in discriminating against Muslims.
Ayup. "Muslim ban - but find out how to do it legally" as Ghouliani gleefully proclaimed on the news. Asking the NSA to drum up some evidence of significant threats from the named countries... Nadda. Speaks to motive, your Honour.
You're right, of course. Back in those days there was much more consensus about a lot of things and the New Deal was still embraced fairly broadly. In fact, the most reactionary fuckers were indeed the "Dixiecrats", southern Dems who actually formed their own party for a very short time. But the name stuck as sort of Democrat Jim Crow. The most notorious names from that time (George Wallace, Orval Faubus, Strom Thurmond, etc.) were all Dems. Many northern Republicans looked positively liberal by comparison. Eisenhower: "In all those things which deal with people, be liberal." Then along came Evil Dick with his "Southern Strategy" and later Ronald-McDonald Reagan, both of whom pandered to the Jim Crow crowd. And lo, the South turned Republican. And has been ever since.
The break down was Conservatives, especially southern Conservatives, voted against it while liberals, especially northern liberals, voted for it. Back then Republicans were mostly a northern party while Dems were mostly a southern party. That has all flipped during the great realignment where the parties flipped sides.
No, D, my fantasy world would be one in which your bigotry HAD died out, rather than still hanging around harming others in its death throes and stinking the place up with its loss of bowel control in its waning days.
Meh-we had to work with the commies to defeat the nazis before, we can do so again. Oddly enough, Barb Edwards' boyfriend (who is know locally as "captain overalls") reminds me a little of you. Likes to think he's punching down then cries foul if someone pushes back.
Once again, it only needs to ban because they are Muslim (de facto, not de jure), not necessarily ban all Muslims, to be likely illegal under the 14th amendment.
I will do an avatar bet with you that this gets overturned by SCotUS or before? Are you game? Standard 30 day terms would apply.
Now the TRO on the travel ban has been extended. Federal judge in Hawaii extends ruling halting travel ban indefinitely At this point you have to wonder whether there's any point in pursuing the ban. What goal was Trump looking to achieve while the temporary ban was in effect? Is the ban really a prerequisite of that goal?
The appeals court has now rejected Travel Ban 2.0. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/25/us/politics/trump-travel-ban-blocked.html Given that one of the arguments behind this rejection is that Trump openly called for a Muslim ban during his campaign - which reveals the intent of the ban, if the exact wording doesn't - it seems unlikely that Trump will get any further with a Travel Ban 3.0, if he even bothers.
Amazingly how quickly it took all this to become a footnote in the Trump dumpster fire of a presidency.
It's back! In part, anyway: Of course, the Trump admin has already had time to "figure out what's going on" while the travel bans were blocked and do whatever it was they were going to do, so I'm not sure what the point of a partial ban is now, other than to make Trump happy and poke a finger in the eye of the lower courts.
Yeah the 90 day time frame has long since expired. If anything, that demonstrates what many suspected: that the Trump administration intended this to be permanent.
Fair enough. The most problematic aspect of the original ban was the way it treated people who were already established in the US, especially green card holders. With SCOTUS moving to protect those people, the broader question of whether the ban posits an unconstitutional religious test seems less urgent, and indeed won't be decided until October. What we're left with is a highly watered-down version of the ban. If that counts as a "victory" for Trump, as the press alleges, so be it.
http://amp.nationalreview.com/article/448997/europe-immigration-changing-attitudes Not exactly on topic but related and an excellent read.
