Trump's 2nd Immigration Ban Blocked

[Breccia]

Sometimes a picture really is worth a thousand words.

And sometimes a judgement is worth even more. Again, this very specific notion was directly refuted as "fundamentally flawed".

It would be akin to saying "the KKK doesn't hate black people because they haven't lynched them all yet".

[apeiron1234]

Have I been making statements that support that I am in fact a KKK member? If so, I think its okay to call a spade a spade.

You should really quit dodging the point or you missed it entirely.

[Krigaren]

You're missing the point.

BUT WHATEVER

Am I? Have you ever considered that your beliefs might be archaic, considered hateful, or largely rooted on the lack of factual evidence? That maybe on a forum that's dedicated to a pretty a-political video game, the majority of people disagree with you not because of bias, but because you're simply wrong?

Or maybe, just maybe, what you see as hypocrisy actually, you know, isn't, but is rather your own bias coloring your internal narrative?

Perhaps the forum isn't the cause of the problem.

BUT WHATEVER

[apeiron1234]

Am I? Have you ever considered that your beliefs might be archaic, considered hateful, or largely rooted on the lack of factual evidence? That maybe on a forum that's dedicated to a pretty a-political video game, the majority of people disagree with you not because of bias, but because you're simply wrong?

Or maybe, just maybe, what you see as hypocrisy actually, you know, isn't, but is rather your own bias coloring your internal narrative?

Perhaps the forum isn't the cause of the problem.

BUT WHATEVER

You should probably go back and read my initial posts a few pages back.

[Krigaren]

Sometimes a picture really is worth a thousand words.

With the understanding that there hasn't been a single act of terror carried out on US soil by any person from any of the nations included in the travel ban (since, what, 1970?) please explain to the class why they were chosen to have the ban applied to them?

For extra credit, using your above answer, please explain why - if people from these countries are indeed such a threat - the ban is only temporary and pegged at exactly 90 days? What benefit does a specific 90 day ban provide to the greater security of the nation?

Oh, look at me being a biased liberal and asking questions.

[Jastall]

Sometimes a picture really is worth a thousand words.

Not when the picture is debunked in one paragraph by the very judgment discussed here. This is akin to saying Dylan Roof was not racist because he didn't kill every single black person on Earth.

[apeiron1234]

You asked me if it would be okay to call someone a KKK member. I responded by saying sometimes a spade is a spade. You then accused me of dodging the question.

I know you want me to agree with you so we can farther your victim complex, but I am not going to do that.

I'm just saying people shouldn't be using those terms whenever they feel like it because they disagree with somebody, especially when it's used against people with differing political and social issues.

[mage21]

Not when the picture is debunked in one paragraph by the very judgment discussed here. This is akin to saying Dylan Roof was not racist because he didn't kill every single black person on Earth.

I utterly disagree that this comparison makes any sense. It was clear and direct what Dylan Roof's motivations were, and he continues to extol his hatred and racially motivated reasons. Trump made a statement a year ago and walked it back, and denies that this is a Muslim ban.

The differences between the two are enormous.

[minteK917]

I'm just saying people shouldn't be using those terms whenever they feel like it because they disagree with somebody, especially when it's used against people with differing political and social issues.

How is that even a logical thing to say? Some pedophiles might think abusing children might be ok, i guess we can no longer call them what they are. In short you want a safe space for idiots of all kinds, just like i cant agree to a safe space for minority idiots, im not gona agree to grant one to bigoted shits either. Stalin was only a totalitarian, a different political opinion, guess im just misunderstanding him.

[Krigaren]

You should probably go back and read my initial posts a few pages back.

Okay, I did. You're doing a lot of whining about how unfair the forum is, how biased it is, how you get infracted for blatantly doing something against the forum rules in deliberate attempt to show how biased the forums are.

That doesn't change anything that I've said. I'm asking you to consider that the reason you view the forums as biased - and by extension the reason you get infracted - is because your views and the things you say might be archaic, considered hateful, or largely aren't rooted on factual evidence?

Like, maybe what you see as people calling someone a Nazi actually isn't? But you saying it to someone directly is a violation of rules. You don't provide evidence to support your claim, but instead you jump to a demonstration to prove a point and get burned, and act as though that's validation for your beliefs.

You also say that you're not "right wing by any stretch" but you say things like, "that's what liberalism does", "you liberals", "libtard", etc, I mean...it's pretty clear that you're lying. But wait, let me guess, you're "independent", just with a heavy bias against the left?

I've read your posts. You're caustic, vitriolic, you seem to enjoy trying to instigate people, you're acerbic and you don't actually have anything meaningful to add to conversations aside from acting like some kind of victim against every injustice you see on the forum. So I'm going to guess that a lot of your infractions are probably for, what, trolling? Maybe flaming?

Again. Perhaps the forum isn't the cause of the problem.

[Xeones]

Sometimes a picture really is worth a thousand words.

http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/defau...316_muslim.jpg

Oh man, I wonder why that never occurred to anyone!

Oh wait it did.

The illogic of the Government’s contentions is palpable. The notion that one can demonstrate animus toward any group of people only by targeting all of them at once is fundamentally flawed. The Court declines to relegate its Establishment Clause analysis to a purely mathematical exercise. [...] Equally flawed is the notion that the Executive Order cannot be found to have targeted Islam because it applies to all individuals in the six referenced countries.

[Kujako]

With the understanding that there hasn't been a single act of terror carried out on US soil by any person from any of the nations included in the travel ban (since, what, 1970?) please explain to the class why they were chosen to have the ban applied to them?

Oh! I know the answer. Because only countries from the preexisting list could be targeted by an executive order. Any other countries would require Congressional approval.

[Krigaren]

Oh! I know the answer. Because only countries from the preexisting list could be targeted by an executive order. Any other countries would require Congressional approval.

We have a winner!

I'll take "Pandering To Constituents" for $500, Alex!

[apeiron1234]

How is that even a logical thing to say? Some pedophiles might think abusing children might be ok, i guess we can no longer call them what they are. In short you want a safe space for idiots of all kinds, just like i cant agree to a safe space for minority idiots, im not gona agree to grant one to bigoted shits either. Stalin was only a totalitarian, a different political opinion, guess im just misunderstanding him.

I think you're misunderstanding. Are you for the travel ban? Yes. Well then you're a xenophobic nazi!

[Jastall]

I utterly disagree that this comparison makes any sense. It was clear and direct what Dylan Roof's motivations were, and he continues to extol his hatred and racially motivated reasons. Trump made a statement a year ago and walked it back, and denies that this is a Muslim ban.

The differences between the two are enormous.

It's not just one statement. The idea of targeting Muslims has very much been one of the ban's selling points with Trump's base.

The Court said it better than I ever would. This is not a mathematical exercise, you cannot claim you do not discriminate just because you don't target every person in a group at once with your discrimination.

[Krigaren]

It's not just one statement. The idea of targeting Muslims has very much been one of the ban's selling points with Trump's base.

The Court said it better than I ever would. This is not a mathematical exercise, you cannot claim you do not discriminate just because you don't target every person in a group at once with your discrimination.

Probably helps the court's case to consider that Trump campaigned on banning muslims.

Directly from the Donald J. Trump website:

​Donald J. Trump Statement on Preventing Muslim Immigration

(New York, NY) December 7th, 2015, -- Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on.

[minteK917]

I think you're misunderstanding. Are you for the travel ban? Yes. Well then you're a xenophobic nazi!

You are most likely an idiot if you support it. Its non sense and ineffective. Its a clear attempt at conning a part of the population, because Trump promised them to stop muslims from coming into the USA, something he could never deliver. So this is the next best thing. Thats why the court can easily shut it down, the constitution is not made to help con artist.

Thats the basis of 3 power of government. You can elect a con artist demagogue as your executive leader, the other branch of the government dont have to let you get conned, if you want to.

[mage21]

It's not just one statement. The idea of targeting Muslims has very much been one of the ban's selling points with Trump's base.

The Court said it better than I ever would. This is not a mathematical exercise, you cannot claim you do not discriminate just because you don't target every person in a group at once with your discrimination.

I'm not disagreeing with the rationale, it's good rationale, what I take issue with is the assumption that Roof's discrimination-based motives are as obvious and clear as Trump's. It's a terrible comparison.

- - - Updated - - -

Probably helps the court's case to consider that Trump campaigned on banning muslims.

Directly from the Donald J. Trump website:

Are candidates allowed to revise their positions? Obama evolved on gay marriage, and everyone accepted that his view now changed from what it was.

[Krigaren]

Are candidates allowed to revise their positions? Obama evolved on gay marriage, and everyone accepted that his view now changed from what it was.

Candidates are absolutely allowed to revise their positions. If Obama made a campaign promise that he was going to ban all gay rights, but then only banned it in Washington D.C. because it was the only place he could provisionally do it by fiat rather than go through congress, that doesn't suddenly mean he's "revised" his position. He still would still be doing what he promised to do, but in the only limited way he could do immediately.

Additionally: Obama's evolution on gay marriage harmed exactly no-one, but provided positive benefit for millions of Americans.

Trump's "revised" position has still harmed hundreds of thousands of people, including Americans, and has provided zero positive benefit.

[Zeth Hawkins]

Trump's "revised" position has still harmed hundreds of thousands of people, including Americans, and has provided zero positive benefit.

I would like to know "who" and "when".