There's a new game. Its called playing the Republican card.

maybe the best summation of the negative fallout I've seen

www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/5888fe22e4b0628ad613ddb2?timestamp=1485553271822

Typical conservative republican wasn't in fashion.

You Mormon

Pence might be awful, in fact he definitely is, but he's awful in ways against which the US' courts and lawmakers and police and public are actually resilient. A working SCOTUS won't let him legislate religion. Even a Republican-dominated Congress and Senate won't let him take away state rights. And so on. Pence doesn't actively want to dismantle all of those institutions and safeguards. Trump is in a league of his own.

And frankly, anyone considering themselves either Republican or conservative and thinking they win wherever Trump wins is in dangerous denial. He ran against you. He is governing against you.

Dayton never insults first. Must be the autism kicking in again.

I started playing the republican card on Yahoo. I make a ridiculous statement and when someone calls me on it I play the republican card. Quite fun for the moment.

Stay classy, lefties.

Or consider the left just hates the packaging and are mostly hypocrites and/or liars.

2011 Obama - bans immigration from Iraq. No protest. No reporting. Not a peep from the reactionary left.
2012- Obama - six month vetting of refugees from Syria at the time just trickling into the US (only 27 a year were passed into).

Lord Bill's words: in 1995 Dems give standing ovation to Pres. Clinton's state of the union address as he says "All Americans ... are rightly disturbed by the large #s of illegal aliens entering our country. We are a nation of immigrants, but we are also a nation of laws. It is wrong and ultimately self-defeating for a nation of immigrants to permit the kind of abuse of our immigration laws we have seen in recent years and we must do more to stop it."

Glad you're posting, Mewa.

Yes, Obama halted the Iraqi refugee program. But only that. Not visa holders or green card holders. Trump has banned ALL Iraqi's.

And as the Syrian deal you speak of...It was then Gov. Mike Pence who got Obama to stop the incoming Syrian refugees.

Again, no problem with strict immigration laws, no problem with stricter vetting. My issue is how it's being done and not putting the countries that the 9/11 hijackers come from on the list and banning legal residents. It's the implementation that I disagree with.

@Nova, I read your comment yesterday and I'll be the one to say it. I'm all for cutting taxes, cutting welfare programs, cutting regulations, cutting the federal government, reasonable restrictions on abortion, etc..., but I'm sorry, I can't get behind this and I won't play the Obama did it game, I'm sick of that. If it's wrong, it's wrong, I don't give a shit about what the last President did or the one before that or the one before that. This election was supposed to be about getting rid of that type of mentality and status quo and so far it's just the same old same old. To paraphrase Reagan, I didn't leave Democratic Party and Republican Party, they left me. In the past two elections, I voted third party, they need to earn my vote. And yes that may have given votes to Trump, but I don't give a shit. It's my right to vote and I refuse to play the lesser of the two evils game. Earn my vote, period.

Furthermore @Nova, I can't stand Lindsey Graham, he's a cocksucker, probably literally, but at least he stood up to Trump. John McCain, who I've lost a lot of respect for, did as well. Good for them. Hopefully Rand Paul will do the same. Calling Mile Lee, Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio. If Rubio wants to run again, now would be a good time to speak up.

Anna, what are you, a retarded child with a learning disorder? Most of that post was quotes, dimwit.

You should stick to what you know best, surrounding yourself with idiots to feel smarter and more secure about yourself, and being a (thinly-veiled) racist.

@Federal Farmer at the risk of derailing the thread, we've already got a reason alone limits on abortion. You'd need to get a lot red tape cleared to induce a woman after 30 weeks and that is without exception always for a medical emergency. There's no bashing a baby's brain in at that late stage.

Other than that nitpick, I agree with you.

My point is that some liberals, most notably on TBBS, that want to ease restrictions. I'm fine with the ones in place. No more, no less. But yes, let's not derail the thread.

There's still a spot open on SCOTUS. You honestly think Pence wouldn't put in some creationist, anti-LGBT-rights judge to push his own agenda? You two are like the people I see on Facebook, deluding themselves into being nostalgic for the Bush years.

Sloppy implementation? Yeah I can get behind that. They'll learn from it.

Here's where you really need to pull your head out of your ass.

Before 9/11 the US didn't pay enough attention to the people coming into this country. After 9/11 we pay lots of attention to people coming to this country. There is no need to ban any country where the 9/11 attackers came from because everyone of those countries is working with the US. We can vet people from there when they come to America.

This action by Trump is against countries that currently have no way for us to vet their people. Either failed states or in the case of Iran a criminal state sponsor of terrorism.

Bringing up 9/11 just makes you look stupid. Why would we punish countries for 9/11 when after 9/11 we and those countries have reformed how we vet people from those countries? Saudi Arabia, Eygpt, and I forgot the last one are not problems. We don't need to punish them because you're still butt-hurt about 9/11. It's like people who to their dying days hated Japanese for Pearl Harbor. Yes 9/11 was terrible (and so was PH) but holding a grudge against a country even after that country has been working with the United States to prevent future 9/11's is retarded.

I feel the same way Kirk did about Klingons in ST6 as I do about SA, don't trust them, don't believe them.

Perhaps you should watch the movie all the way to it's end. You know the part where Kirk realizes he's been a douche-bag about the Klingons and comes to terms with them.

KINDA obvious your argument is going south when you have to continually invoke Hillary as your lede...

yeah....not so much..
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...485807696875&tid=ss_tw&utm_term=.5c9b45e8ab2e

Which was almost a decade after Reagan supposedly fixed the problem and neither of them have fuck-all to do with refugees.

not even that. It's a claim that as reliable as everything else Trump's little band of fascists trots out
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...485807696875&tid=ss_tw&utm_term=.5c9b45e8ab2e

he will indeed! That's not a reason to support Trump though, because Pence and his fellow Dominionists hand picked Trump's list of candidates.

Regardless of that, we know the Saudis funded the Taliban and AQ, normally that would warrant retaliation, but for sixteen years we've let them slide. I thought Trump wouldn't let shit like that go? Tell me, if I put a hit out on my ex wife and she were killed by a hit man, would I not also be responsible for her death? Besides, the language of the ban brings up 9/11, so why bring that up if we're not going to go after the actual countries that the hijackers were from or who funded them?

Because once again the point of the ban is to get a handle on countries where we can not vet the people who want to come to America. Regardless of what you think of Saudi Arabia the fact is that the United States and Saudi Arabia work together to help the United States vet Saudi Arabian citizens. The ban is not about getting revenge for 9/11.

Oh, absolutely. But he wouldn't choose someone who explicitly wants to destroy the Constitution. Again, Pence would be horrible, but Trump is in a completely different category.

IIRC the Saudi government itself did not fund the Taliban and Al Queda. While individual Saudis did, this no more implicates the Saudi government than Irish Americans funding the IRA implicates the U.S. government.

Seems to me this is a selective ban because we refuse to get out of bed with the Saudis. Then what is it about? Shouldn't we put more resources into rounding up people who over stay visas or hop the border?

I know that Dayton, we can't prove that the Saudi government was involved, but I'd wager anything that they were. It's kind of like the gay guy in high school that everyone knows is gay, but he won't come out, so you can't say for sure he's gay.

Sticking to what you know best, which for you is being a fat loser, crying like a bitch and deleting your crap posts. Right, pussyfart?

I wouldn't. Everything I've studied about the Saudi government suggests that those in the upper ranks who actually make their policies are basically Muslims "in name only". Basically a bunch of rich playboys whose goals in life are to keep the oil flowing out, the dollars flowing in, and the guys with knives as far away as possible.

They give lip service to Islamic fundamentalism and have no problems stoking the nationalistic (hard to be a nationalist when you barely have a coherent country) rhetoric to keep the lower classes on board....but in the end they know who pay their bills.