Rooting For "Deep State" To Undermine Trump Is Destroying Democracy In Name Of Saving

[starlord]

Not really. If Christians are uniquely in danger in that country of being physically annihilated and Muslims as a community are not, I see no reason why you shouldn't prioritize those with greater need. If anything though the Yazidi deserve even greater precedent. In in terms of a refugee/immigration policy, communities under threat of physical annihilation are almost always given priority consideration.

Its not a Muslim ban, its only a Muslim ban in the eyes of detractors of Trump look for a rhetorical cudgel.

- - - Updated - - -



Not really. Its a ban on people from 7 countries, but gives special status for communities from those countries threatened with physical annihilation. Assyrian and Syriac Christians are undoubtedly threatened with annihilation. As are Yazidi and other minority communities in those countries.

- - - Updated - - -



Generally speaking a refugee policy is usually based on what community faces extermination.

Are you saying that we could never selectively prioritize a group for special statues if a unifying feature of that group is religion?

not while simultaneously preventing others of different religions from coming. thats a little different than "prioritizing."

[Theodarzna]

its not prioritizing its singling out, "we will take war refuges of christians but not muslims" is simply unconstitutional

Prioritize and Single Out are synonymous terms, they just have different emotive connotations. Nice use of manipulative language there buddy.

Christians say Syria are under direct threat of annihilation, Muslims in those countries are not threatened with not existing as a community. Giving the Christians there first dibs seems sensible as they are in the most critical danger.

- - - Updated - - -

not while simultaneously preventing others of different religions from coming. thats a little different than "prioritizing."

Are the others from that country in danger of the complete annihilation of their community.

In terms of a tiered priority:

Syrian Christians are threatened with annihilation and have no historic connection to terrorist attacks in the United States.
Syrian Muslims are not facing communal annihilation (Technically they are responsible for the first groups current danger) and there is concern that some Muslims might be jihadi's.

Seems like a sober assessment of the situation on the ground.

[Stormspellz]

Prioritize and Single Out are synonymous terms, they just have different emotive connotations. Nice use of manipulative language there buddy.

Christians say Syria are under direct threat of annihilation, Muslims in those countries are not threatened with not existing as a community. Giving the Christians there first dibs seems sensible as they are in the most critical danger.

you of all people talk about manipulative language is laughable.

but no they are synonymous in this situation.

the wording isn't an exception for religious persecuted or immediate threatened groups, its a loophole for christian and only christian persecuted groups.

[Theodarzna]

you of all people talk about manipulative language is laughable.

but no they are synonymous in this situation.

the wording isn't an exception for religious persecuted or immediate threatened groups, its a loophole for christian and only christian persecuted groups.

Well they are the group facing existential annihilation as a community. Muslims are not in danger of ceasing to exist in Syria.

[starlord]

Well they are the group facing existential annihilation as a community. Muslims are not in danger of ceasing to exist in Syria.

actively preventing people from seeking refugee status based on their religion is discrimination.

[mage21]

because you are giving special rights for one religion over another, which is with out question goes against the constitution

and going back to the original comment. you know damn well its more then "restricting travel" in its intent, interpretation and implementation, which is why it had something like 1-10 court record.

its the muslim ban, that isn't a muslim ban, but it is.

Considering that the 50 or so other majority-Muslim countries were not on the travel ban list, and only 7 were, if it were a Muslim ban, it'd have to go down as the least-effective Muslim ban in history.

[Theodarzna]

actively preventing people from seeking refugee status based on their religion is discrimination.

The ban is against all Syrians, with the exception of a specific community under threat of complete annihilation. Unless the ban actually says "Muslims can't come here!" and unless its a ban on all Muslims globally its a stretch to call it a "Muslim ban."

- - - Updated - - -

Considering that the 50 or so other majority-Muslim countries were not on the travel ban list, and only 7 were, if it were a Muslim ban, it'd have to go down as the least-effective Muslim ban in history.

Yeah, I mean there wasn't even a requirement that all new people entering the country eat a piece of bacon or face deportation.

[starlord]

The ban is against all Syrians, with the exception of a specific community under threat of complete annihilation. Unless the ban actually says "Muslims can't come here!" and unless its a ban on all Muslims globally its a stretch to call it a "Muslim ban."

if you make an exception based on religion, you are therefore excluding other religions.
like banning a primarily muslim country, then making exceptions for non-muslims.

[Stormspellz]

Well they are the group facing existential annihilation as a community. Muslims are not in danger of ceasing to exist in Syria.

its not a question of if said group should be helped. Its how targeting and specifying christians (or any other religious sect) over another on the sole basis of their religion is simply unconstitutional

- - - Updated - - -

Considering that the 50 or so other majority-Muslim countries were not on the travel ban list, and only 7 were, if it were a Muslim ban, it'd have to go down as the least-effective Muslim ban in history.

again the order did more then simply restrict travel from "questionable" areas, and why people with their papers in order still got stopped from entering the country. The law is as much about intent as actual wording

[Theodarzna]

if you make an exception based on religion, you are therefore excluding other religions.
like banning a primarily muslim country, then making exceptions for non-muslims.

So when the US turned away Jews (A religious group) that was the right move in WW2? After all we don't want to appear to be favoring any specific religious group.

Incidentally most Syrians are Muslim. Indonesian Muslims vastly outnumber Syrians and could still come by the boatload. Syrian Christians get a priority because they face annihilation, unlike Syrian Muslims whom will still exist.

- - - Updated - - -

its not a question of if said group should be helped. Its how targeting and specifying christians (or any other religious sect) over another on the sole basis of their religion is simply unconstitutional

So, when the US turned away Europes Jews in WW2, that was the right move because really we don't want to appear to be helping a specific religious group or anything.

[starlord]

So when the US turned away Jews (A religious group) that was the right move in WW2? After all we don't want to appear to be favoring any specific religious group.

Incidentally most Syrians are Muslim. Indonesian Muslims vastly outnumber Syrians and could still come by the boatload. Syrian Christians get a priority because they face annihilation, unlike Syrian Muslims whom will still exist.

or you could just not ban people seeking refuge from war in general, since they all face potential annihilation.

doesnt that seem like the simplest solution to avoid these tricky legal pitfalls?

also it is interesting you bring up the turning away of jewish refugees. most of the nation fully supported it, since it was not their concern and "jews didnt face annihilation." at the time.

[Slybak]

The entire conception of "the deep state" as applied to American government is itself flawed.

The USIC and various other defense-related organs are, unlike the Turkish derin devlet - which is where the term originates and is itself controversial - not constitutionally cordoned off from democratic or even administrative accountability. Hence the fact that the USIC's conflict with Trump is being mediated through a combination of official channels and leaks to the press; there is no mechanism through which the CIA, for instance, can overthrow a President (unless, of course, you believe in things like a second gunman on the grassy knoll). Turkey, on the other hand, has had six military coups or attempted-coups over the past half century.

The deep state, in this instance, is just being used to selectively describe a set of career bureaucrats in particular agencies. We've also seen various "rebellions" - and one has to squint really hard to see them that way - in other departments of government that have been conducted in the same manner and no one is treating them like threats to democratic self-rule. When the Department of the Interior rushes to save climate data before the incoming administration destroys it, is that a coup by the deep state? When hundreds of people in the Department of Labor write a letter opposing the nomination of Andrew Puzder to Secretary of Labor, is that a coup by the deep state? Of course not.

Relatedly, I find it particularly telling that a state transparency "advocate" like Greenwald is suddenly opposed to leaks to the press by members of the intelligence community who think the administration is doing something dangerous. Maybe they needed to flee to Hong Kong first.

When Eisenhower inveighed against the "Military-Industrial Complex" (fun fact: he originally wanted to call it the "Military-Industrial-Congressional Complex," he was ultimately talking about the political interests of institutions to secure funding. He wasn't talking about a secret shadow government, but a new army of defense-related lobbyists who would soak up an increasing share of state spending and the potential for its corrupting influence on Congress. Invocations of such a complex in this context are thus unwarranted.

[Theodarzna]

or you could just not ban people seeking refuge from war in general, since they all face potential annihilation.

doesnt that seem like the simplest solution to avoid these tricky legal pitfalls?

also it is interesting you bring up the turning away of jewish refugees. most of the nation fully supported it, since it was not their concern and "jews didnt face annihilation." at the time.

We could, but there is the risk of doing as he EU has done and just letting all come, you risk allowing dangerous individuals into your country.

So is it your contention that Christians in Syria are in no real danger?

[starlord]

We could, but there is the risk of doing as he EU has done and just letting all come, you risk allowing dangerous individuals into your country.

So is it your contention that Christians in Syria are in no real danger?

your contention seems to be that they are not a danger, yet somehow the rest of their countrymen are. curious.

[Stormspellz]

So when the US turned away Jews (A religious group) that was the right move in WW2? After all we don't want to appear to be favoring any specific religious group.

Incidentally most Syrians are Muslim. Indonesian Muslims vastly outnumber Syrians and could still come by the boatload. Syrian Christians get a priority because they face annihilation, unlike Syrian Muslims whom will still exist.

- - - Updated - - -



So, when the US turned away Europes Jews in WW2, that was the right move because really we don't want to appear to be helping a specific religious group or anything.

that goal post move with strawman to boot.

but hell i'll play. pre war- it wasn't specific targeting of the jews, it was following the strict laws of the time on limited immigration numbers and once the war started the US didn't help the jews simply because of them being jewish, nor where they only people we aided. When the Roosevalt's Executive order was placed to get more refugees in, while primary jews it wasn't only jews.

seeing the theme here?

[Machismo]

Not really. If Christians are uniquely in danger in that country of being physically annihilated and Muslims as a community are not, I see no reason why you shouldn't prioritize those with greater need. If anything though the Yazidi deserve even greater precedent. In in terms of a refugee/immigration policy, communities under threat of physical annihilation are almost always given priority consideration.

Its not a Muslim ban, its only a Muslim ban in the eyes of detractors of Trump look for a rhetorical cudgel.

- - - Updated - - -



Not really. Its a ban on people from 7 countries, but gives special status for communities from those countries threatened with physical annihilation. Assyrian and Syriac Christians are undoubtedly threatened with annihilation. As are Yazidi and other minority communities in those countries.

- - - Updated - - -



Generally speaking a refugee policy is usually based on what community faces extermination.

Are you saying that we could never selectively prioritize a group for special statues if a unifying feature of that group is religion?

Yes, you are trying to argue against your original position that it wasn't a ban on Muslims. If they allow for Christian exceptions, then religion is clearly a factor in the decision making process. It's no longer a simple ban of people from those specific countries, it's a ban of specific religions from those seven countries. You are now literally arguing against yourself. You are arguing against the stated intent of this ban, and you are also arguing against your stated beliefs of what conservatism should mean. You spoke out against the "anarcho tyranny" that develops... and here you are, pushing for it and justifying it. It's astonishing that you don't realize it.

I also noticed that you still dodged the question I asked you:

The state laws that defined marriage between a man and woman, were they bans on gay marriage?

[Theodarzna]

Yes, you are trying to argue against your original position that it wasn't a ban on Muslims. If they allow for Christian exceptions, then religion is clearly a factor in the decision making process. It's no longer a simple ban of people from those specific countries, it's a ban of specific religions from those seven countries. You are now literally arguing against yourself.

Its a ban on Syrians, with the exception that Syriac Christians can come. Indonesians (By far the largest group of Muslims) can still come. Muslims are not banned.

[Machismo]

Its a ban on Syrians, with the exception that Syriac Christians can come. Indonesians (By far the largest group of Muslims) can still come. Muslims are not banned.

But some Muslims are banned, which is the entire point. It's designed to be disingenuous. That's the same as me building a wall around the outside of your property, and saying nobody is allowed outside. According to you, it's not a Theodarzna ban.

You still didn't answer my question:

The state laws that defined marriage between a man and woman, were they bans on gay marriage?

[Theodarzna]

But some Muslims are banned, which is the entire point. It's designed to be disingenuous. That's the same as me building a wall around the outside of your property, and saying nobody is allowed outside. According to you, it's not a Theodarzna ban.

So can you hold a travel ban on any country? After all every country has a demographic majority in it. If someone issues a travel ban on North Korea, is that a ban on Koreans? After all its a majority of Koreans that live there. But say we give an exemption to Buddhist Monks, knowing the Kim regime cracks down on Buddhism.

You seem to be reading more into the Executive Order than what is literally on its page.

[Glorious Leader]

So in other words, because a minority has been outright unexcusable for being tremendous idiots, it is therefore ok for you to do the same?

What about the people who have supported Obama through and through and just want the biggest country in the world to stop bickering over stupidities that honestly makes it look hysterical?

See the problem with this rational is that it really excuses what they did for 8 years and in fact handicaps any opposition. Thisnl was not the minority within the conservative movement and the republicans sure as shit didnt come out and argue against. 8 fucking years on major conservative news outlets and media places. FOX FUCK NEWS having prime time glenn beck compating the president to a nazi. Rush fat ass limbaugh on the radio scraming about libruls coming for your guns and your money. Then those some fuckers going on actual mainstream news outlets carrying the same fucking crazy rhetoric to a national audiencr. Now the media and the dems have to play nice when its a republican in office but when a democrat goes in well its open season. Too. Fuckng. Bad. The right wing coservitards started this fucking mess with the media when they used it as a platform to demonize the president and effectively obstruct his agenda. Dont fucking like it? Suck it the fuck up.