Unfortunately, I expect the latter to start trending upward. That said, ultimately it's up to people to call them out on it, and as you're seeing, there's a significant part of the population that feels these changes are warranted. Hell, I've seen hundreds of comments across various news sites, so far today, who echo the notion of "if it makes us safer, I'm all for it" when it comes to the TSA giving everyone pat down searches, including areas like the breasts, butt, and crotch. These people are willing to throw away their right to bodily autonomy in order to advance the illusion of safety. So no, I have little faith in people at the moment, and even less faith in the current government to abide by any ethical constraint.
So true. There's no shortage of idiots out there. But these things generally aren't decided by opinion poll. If it comes to that, then by who shouts loudest. So he'll miss the thing in Toronto and hopefully successfully sue the government. If that doesn't happen, I think we can all give up on the US. The centre and the left in the US had better get off their wee butts and Raise Fucking Hell, and keep on doing it day-in day-out until the Pubs fold. Meaning: Forget the sorry-assed Dems. The only way forward is to keep shouting, give Dindins apoplexy, and then go on shouting. I mean, Hillary did get almost three million votes more than Numnutz. So the numbers are there. All that's needed is the determination. Because the day Donaldism becomes Normal, you're fucked.
Exactly. There are notable personalities out there leading the charge, but the groundswell still needs to be much, much larger. Trump lost the popular vote by 3 million people, and he's convinced they were illegal voters, so he's not going to listen to petitions, or protests. Neither will his staff, who will simply bury their heads in Trump's ass. Petitioning the courts is our best option, but Trump is about to hobble us there, too, so we need to act fast. Some of the GOP is coming around on the PPACA issue, thanks to town halls where their own constituents are jumping down their throats, but then you have GOPers who insist they're just paid protesters, so it's damned frustrating. The clock's running out on that one, too.
It might not have been in the wording, but shortly before the original order was signed Trump said that Christians would be given priority as refugees.
You are actually a huge bigot. You even enjoy it and have genocide fantasies regularly around here. You are a nasty and vile cuck. Stop pretending it is just people who have some game they are playing. You are a bigot.
Take away California and Trump won the popular vote nationwide by 1 million votes. Take away California and New York and Trump won the popular vote nationwide by nearly 5 million votes IIRC. Not that popular vote matters of course but still.
Does nothing to refute John's point, which was solely that Trump lost by that many and considers them "illegal votes", which speaks to his delusion and need to self-aggrandise. And the delusion of his base for buying that horseshit. Anything else is just you moving the goalposts because you don't consider Californians or New Yorkers "true" Americans, but their votes and opinions should matter just as much as yours, only your back-assedwards electoral college fucks the whole thing up.
Dinner is pissed he diddn't get any awards . Dayton must be mad that I was e-3 at basic cause of meps and right billet.
You are just wrong. Visas can be revoked at any time for any reason and without advanced notice. Green cards are more iffy legally and probably would need some legal review process (note that might not mean courts). The whole belly aching over cancelled visas was nonsense to begin with.
The more irrational the left wing extremists get the more public support they I will lose. Protests likely won't do much for them. If done right, being peaceable and not violent or pissing people off by blocking roads, it might help rev up their base so they actually show up to vote but the people they need to convince are in red states and pissing them off with violent or disruptive behavior probably won't get them to vote for your side. Your time would be better spent on GOTV efforts in red states so you actually win as the Constitution says you need to do so.
You bonehead! The guy has a fuckin' US passport. And he wanted to go to freakin' Canada, not North Korea. Though in yore mind the two are probably easily confused.
In fact, there's so little possible reason (or indeed legal case) that Khan's ability to travel could be reviewed that many commentators are warning against putting too much stock in the story.
only your back-assedwards electoral college fucks the whole thing up. - Matt Hunter funny, both Clinton and Trump have lived their entire adult lives under the premise of the electoral college vote determining presidential winners - yet the more politically experienced of the two (Clinton in case you aren't bright enough to figure that out) couldn't grasp that, and thus ran head-on into FAIL. So is Clinton dumb-as-fuck or are her followers? Just askin'
His name's Khan, eh? Guys, guys, I got it all figured out. The US is reviewing his travel priveliges to protect ShatnerKirk, a Canadian
Anyone noticing how little outrage this is causing? The New Normal is here and it's being accepted. Not good.
It doesn't kick in until March 15th, so no-one is yet being detained/turned away from airports unlike last time. Once it gets put into practice, we may see more pushback. However, Hawaii definitely ain't happy about it: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...muslim-travel-ban_us_58c15602e4b0ed71826a67cd
Just counting down the days: 3 left. Also just stumbled upon a chilling analysis of the terrorism risk posed by immigrants (emphasis mine): https://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/terrorism-immigration-risk-analysis 1 in 3.64 billion per year. That's yuge! Thank goodness US citizens will soon be protected from this serious threat.
2.0 is off to a shaky start. Judges use Trump’s own words in ruling against revised travel ban Maybe third time's a charm?
It's great because Trump said he was going to ban muslims with the first ban, then that got shot down, then said this ban was just like the first one...which means he was going to ban muslims.
This one won't stand. A "Muslim ban" with fails to ban 95% of all muslims? That is not much of a Muslim ban. This truly is just a partisan political actor pretending to be a judge. He is just trashing about trying to find excuses to be a partisan fuckwad and nothing more. Yes, this type of irresponsible fuckwaddery damages the creditability of the court.
Again, how can a ban which does not effect 95% of muslims be a Muslim ban? The judge even admitted there was no discriminatory language in the bill and that religion but he said the order was bad for Hawaii tourism and for foreign students. In other words, he said it was bad policy but could not name why it was illegal other than to claim it was some how a Muslim ban which is demonstrablely false. Judged are supposed to rule about legality based upon the law not argue that he dislikes policies legally enactrd by duly elected public officials. That is why this ruling will likely be over turned.
You are claiming to be a mind reader. Sorry but you need evidence in the order or at least in the order's impact. The judge himself said he can find nothing in the bill which spells out a Muslim ban while the impact is that 95% of muslims are still free to enter (unfortunately) so there is no there there. That is why a lot of legal scholars are saying it will be over turned.
Rulings don't happen in a vacuum. Enforcement of the ban is going to be up to individuals who will likely be following the lead of the White House...which has been calling to ban muslims, whether it's in the text of the travel ban or not.
So qe are back to "I don't care about the evidence that 95% of muslims aren't banned, I am just going to lie and pretend it is a Muslim ban.". The tears of people crying when this horriblely illogical and partisan motivated ruling gets over turned are going to be sweet.
