Trump's 2nd Immigration Ban Blocked

[Orange Joe]

I'm not complaining about being infracted or anything. I get it and I probably deserve it. But when I see a poster who literally posts with "You're a nazi" and never gets infracted for anything at all. The fact so many people spout out racist, fascist, Hitler, nazis, etc at people should be infracted. It's funny because I get this feeling a lot of people don't even know how serious it is to be called those things let alone know what they actually are other than buzz words.

I've been called almost every liberal insult you can think of. Many of them never got infracted. Mods don't catch everything, or may infract them once for many things in a different post.


I'll be the first to tell you moderation isn't consistent at all. I can also tell you it doesn't target one side over the other.

[Krigaren]

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

Wow, you're joking right?

Okay, here we go:

Family of 4-month-old set to have surgery at OHSU impacted by Trump's executive order

Chicago-based Doctor Blocked from Entering Country

Dual citizen Australian schoolboy denied entry to US for space camp

Donald Trump Muslim immigration ban: US airports already refusing visa holders entry

US-bound migrants blocked from flying to JFK airport

Trump’s Executive Order Is Already Hurting Refugees, Muslims And Families

We Don't Want to Risk It.' Some Green-Card Holders Fear Leaving the U.S. Under Trump’s Travel Ban

Canadian Girl Guides cancel US travel ahead of ban

Still waiting for that headline that says, "Massive terrorist attack thwarted due to travel ban". Have a feeling I'll be waiting a looooooong time.

[belfpala]

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

Obama didn't campaign on anything anti-gay. And even if he had, changing to a position of acceptance is laudable in itself.

Edit to add: Obama's position on gay marriage was a huge negative for many friends of mine leading up to 2008.

[mage21]

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.

When you look at the executive order, it's really a fulfillment of his revised position (new screening process). That's the enduring aspect. Viewed as a Muslim ban it fails pretty badly considering it's for a few months, which is fine since Trump's position evolved away from "Muslim ban" to "extreme vetting".

- - - Updated - - -

Obama didn't campaign on anything anti-gay. And even if he had, changing to a position of acceptance is laudable in itself.

Edit to add: Obama's position on gay marriage was a huge negative for many friends of mine leading up to 2008.

Yeah that was a terrible example.

[Zan15]

what is it like winning all the time?

[belfpala]

Yeah that was a terrible example.

How so?

Yes, a politician (or anyone) is allowed to modify their views over time. However, I recall phrases like, "thinly veiled," "obvious attempt," and "least restrictive" and such in a previous lifetime.

- - - Updated - - -

what is it like winning all the time?

You high-five your opponent, then look for the next victim.

[Gorgodeus]

You must have missed it. All judges appointed by Obama were already asked to step down or were fired.

Umm, no. Judges are not asked to step down or retire. lol

You are thinking of US District Attorneys.

[The Penguin]

I never said that, and that's not what happened. You are wrong on the second and blatantly lying on the first.

Trump's stated intent to have a Muslim Ban was used against him in a court of law, and it worked, because such an intent is against the US Constitution. It did not fail because of the first -- or the second, now -- judge's opinion, other than the fact the judge's opinion was a trained education of the law and its interpretation. You have none, and you can't even read what I wrote correctly.

I know you wish it was lying, but random insults do not lend credence to your case.

Now where are those mods who claim to moderate rude / fighting posts-- oh right. I'm Conservative.

[araine]

Whoever that Dimocrat "judge" is should be impeached.

Yeah god forbid we have judges standing up for religious freedom or anything

[The Penguin]

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 - - -



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

That would require an open mind, which is unfortunately out of stock on these forums. Especially if the person calling for it is white, conservative, straight, a Uncle Tom, or a nationalist. ESPECIALLY IF THEY ARE ANY OF THOSE.

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah god forbid we have judges standing up for religious freedom or anything

This is a good thing when it's done with solid legal reasons. It is not good when we have a Judge that ignores the law and does so just because he wants to do that. It creates a double standard in law where the laws placed on the books by one political party are treated as legitimate, while other laws are ignored or blocked arbitrarily. That does damage then to the system as a whole. There is a name for it also. Judicial activism.

This judge is in violation of his duty, and it should result in disbarment and removal from the bench the same way a Lawyer would be for similar choices in a Court-room. More over a different judge should of heard the case. If the second Judge came to a similar opinion, I might be more conciliatory, but this reeks of the rubber stamp "Resist Trump" bullshit, that is borderline dereliction of duty.

Don't care if you like Trump and worship Obama. Laws should be viewed through a non-political lens and blind to what politicians desire. Obama has unfortunately had a major problem with this, as we saw when he was leaning on the Supreme Court to go his way on Obamacare. This is one reason I despise him. He took things to a new extreme that we now have to bottle up like a rogue genie.

[shimerra]

I know you wish it was lying, but random insults do not lend credence to your case.

Now where are those mods who claim to moderate rude / fighting posts-- oh right. I'm Conservative.

Hey I found your victim card. You dropped it again like you do any time someone outwits you. And the insult wasn't random. It was a direct response to your inability to comprehend a simple point.

Don't insult Conservatives by calling yourself one. You're a partisan shill seeking to reinforce his own world view whether it's truth or a lie. Being a Conservative implies some sort of ability to be introspective.

This is a good thing when it's done with solid legal reasons. It is not good when we have a Judge that ignores the law and does so just because he wants to do that. That's judicial activism, violation of his duty, and should result in disbarment and removal from the bench the same way a Lawyer would be for similar choices in a Court-room.

He didn't ignore the law. He applied it properly. You wanting him to ignore it because of your irrational fear and hated of a specific group of people is not him doing his duty and your attempt to abuse the law to create a safe space to soothe your phobias isn't want we should base our legal system off of.

You have a President and his staff blatantly ignoring the law or trying to skirt it because it engorges your fuck liberals attitude and you seem perfectly okay with that but when a judge actually does his job for once you get pissed. Why?

[Orange Joe]

Umm, no. Judges are not asked to step down or retire. lol

You are thinking of US District Attorneys.

Yup, like 2 post later I admitted my mistake.

[Glorious Leader]

I never get enough of watching you guys melt down and put your contempt for the American system of government on display because the god-king has hit the limits of his power.

Its like they actually want a king to rule them.

[araine]

That would require an open mind, which is unfortunately out of stock on these forums. Especially if the person calling for it is white, conservative, straight, a Uncle Tom, or a nationalist. ESPECIALLY IF THEY ARE ANY OF THOSE.

- - - Updated - - -



This is a good thing when it's done with solid legal reasons. It is not good when we have a Judge that ignores the law and does so just because he wants to do that. It creates a double standard in law where the laws placed on the books by one political party are treated as legitimate, while other laws are ignored or blocked arbitrarily. That does damage then to the system as a whole. There is a name for it also. Judicial activism.

This judge is in violation of his duty, and it should result in disbarment and removal from the bench the same way a Lawyer would be for similar choices in a Court-room. More over a different judge should of heard the case. If the second Judge came to a similar opinion, I might be more conciliatory, but this reeks of the rubber stamp "Resist Trump" bullshit, that is borderline dereliction of duty.

Don't care if you like Trump and worship Obama. Laws should be viewed through a non-political lens and blind to what politicians desire. Obama has unfortunately had a major problem with this, as we saw when he was leaning on the Supreme Court to go his way on Obamacare. This is one reason I despise him. He took things to a new extreme that we now have to bottle up like a rogue genie.

Dont know where you got the idea that i like Obama? Obama was far to conservative on issues, check his healthcare program straight from the heritage foundation a right wing conservative think tank and as far away from true public healthcare as you can get. so of course it isnt working very well i could have told you that already years ago

[Orbitus]

Sure, because there is no such thing as poligamy among muslims today, right?

Good for them, now point to me, where they are in our country. Still doesn't prove your point that another religion was banned, ever.

- - - Updated - - -

Uh oh! You got banned for disagreeing with Endus too much!

No, you didn't see what he said to get banned.

- - - Updated - - -

Sometimes a picture really is worth a thousand words.

What is this supposed to prove? Just because it doesn't ban all of the Muslim countries, does not mean this isn't in all purposes a "Muslim Ban". Which again, there were provisions in the first one that allowed "minority religions" in, which meant Christianity in these countries, but not Muslims. So, yes, its purpose is to ban Muslims.

[Wells]

Sometimes a picture really is worth a thousand words.

This is an argument against the ban. Ramirez is such a hack.

[Deleted]

Sometimes a picture really is worth a thousand words.

Yep and the picture still proves it's a muslim ban, whether or not all muslim countries are included makes no difference, because all the countries that are included are Muslim. If all countries that are muslim would be included, it would be an all muslim ban, and that term isn't used by democrats or judges (or sane people).

Not to mention the most dangerous countries that are known for terrorism aren't even on the list (Saudi Arabia, Palestina, Tunisia, etc). Then again we all know why Saudi Arabia isn't on the list, because Trump actually has foreign investments there and probably enough debt to get bribed over it too.

[Zeth Hawkins]

-snip-

My apologies. It would seem my question was ambiguous.

You claim people were harmed by the executive order. Please provide an example of who and when.

All that I am gleaming from your links is that people were inconvenienced by the executive order (some by choice).

[mage21]

Yep and the picture still proves it's a muslim ban, whether or not all muslim countries are included makes no difference, because all the countries that are included are Muslim. If all countries that are muslim would be included, it would be an all muslim ban, and that term isn't used by democrats or judges (or sane people).

Not to mention the most dangerous countries that are known for terrorism aren't even on the list (Saudi Arabia, Palestina, Tunisia, etc). Then again we all know why Saudi Arabia isn't on the list, because Trump actually has foreign investments there and probably enough debt to get bribed over it too.

Yeah but I guess the argument is that just because Muslims are the most affected, that doesn't make it a de facto Muslim ban.

If Iran had a ban on Americans traveling to Iran it wouldn't be a "Christian Ban". Even if there was a Christian terrorism problem coming out of America and they wanted to deal with it. If they specifically said that only Christians are banned, then it's a Christian ban.

And I think the Saudi absence is due to much deeper-running reasons than anything to do with Trump personally.

[Wyrt]

Yeah but I guess the argument is that just because Muslims are the most affected, that doesn't make it a deal facto Muslim ban.

If Iran had a ban on Americans traveling to Iran it wouldn't be a "Christian Ban".

And I think the Saudi absence is due to much deeper-running reasons than anything to do with Trump personally.

Would depend on their reasoning for the ban.