Federal judge blocks new Trump travel ban

[tres borrachos]

its clear, since you are no longer are on the side of reason anymore since nov 8, you don't understand what i mean

Save it for someone else. Being opposed to a fraudulent President is quite reasonable. More reasonable than hero worshipping a liar.

I hope this works out for you because I'm sure you believe there are thousands of Yemeni refugees just waiting to come to your town and kill everyone. Trump says it, so it must be so.

 

[tres borrachos]

Who's "obsessing"? I responded to what you said in your post.

Tres, I don't think you understand what's going on here. Matchlight said that those aren't the only two options -- they could also just plain ignore the ruling. You said you "already said that" in post 833, but you didn't, and you're STILL saying the "only two" choices are to drop it or pursue further litigation.

It's not a question of MY "wanting" them to do anything, or not do anything. It's a question of something else they could INDEED do, beyond the only two choices you say they have.

Pointing out that it's something they COULD do doesn't mean it's something that I, matchlight, or anyone else thinks they SHOULD do.

If you and Matchlight want to recommend that the WH ignore a judge's ruling, then by all means do it. Keep me out of it.

 

[Master PO]

What I'm referring to is exactly what Justice Scalia warned the rest of the Court, in his dissenting opinion in Obergefell, that they were inviting by making lawless decisions.

the executive branch is the enforcement branch of government which has boots on the ground, meaning they can enforce the law over the heads of the judicial branch of government, [ its been done before] which causes a constitutional crisis.

 

[Fearandloathing]

Awesome response Fear, If I may,

1) 100% accurate on the "seed marriage" fortunately for me, we actually were legitimate and had way too much documents to prove, HAHAAHA, Pictures, phone bills, texts etc etc. Was funny when the investigator reviewed our case they laughed at us in comparison to some other really bad "seed" cases they have seen LOL!

2) Again been to the the middle east, and was very active in the, communities, I was very familiar with the UNs dealings, refugee camps and even vetting process to my specific scope. That being said, moving a whole refugee camp to a nation is a big expense, culture shock and more so asking for conflict. With that when conflict spills over.

3)You are right, those that did not pass, didnt get in, but again when its a huge influx of them and they seem to be bypassing systems faster than those that go through the proper channel. Its seems a bit odd.... using the "refugee" clause as an excuse. You are right, my situation, looking at "Seed" marriage, is a problem but not of direct security and threat to national security. Yet some refugees are admit almost instantly and then vetted after the fact.

4) I will go back to the overwhelming, how many people can we "US" handle..... It is overwhelming, it cost money to provide subsidies, and these are NOT American Citizens. Without being PC, I pay taxes, my taxes goes to X funds..... Why should I pay taxes for refugees...that are not citizens, it should go to my fellow citizens first?

5) As for living and being squeezed.... Sorry the world is not perfect..... I know multi generational families that squeeze in a small apartment, in a First world Country... am I to worry about a 3rd world country that I have no direct, relationship with.

6) Absolutely, agree.. the media paints a terrible picture and the proof is in the research and that is what I am doing. SO I truly appreciate your input and not a need to apologies, were are keeping it very civil and I respect that!

7) There is a bunch of hysteria...... I agree that it is horrible overblown..... but again.... I am an American Citizen, I pay my taxes, vote, volunteer in my community. I also served in my nations military. I married a women not of natural citizenship out of love and we are happily married with 1 child and another on the way. I went through the full legal process and the scrutiny of the immigration process. With all that being said..... Why should I care about refugees? and finally...one last useless tid bit...why should I care about illegal immigrants? My wife could have illegally over stayed her Visa.... But we chose to follow the laws of the land.


With that, thank you for your kinds words, My condolences to your loss and I hope you are doing well. I am sure your wife is smiling at you for whom you are! Take care my friend!

To bring it back into perspective and deal with one point there that is a very valid question. How much is too much? Canada is 1/10th the size of the US, and by rights it might be an argument here...IF we were filling all the right jobs with our birth rate. We are not. I don't think the US does either.

So, as with the beginning of this "country" we need immigration, we need entry level workers, hospital technicians, computer techs, all of it. And so, the grand gesture of a new prime minister, a grand gesture that has gelled the nation...which is not a bad reason to bring in immigrants.

This is Canada where 90% of the population lives within 100 miles of the US border, we certainly have room....hell we have estimates of millions of acres that have never seen the footprint of man. So, its a win in many ways, and frankly I have to say I was surprised at the response of Canadians.

And it is my theory that because of the harsh climate, Canadians HAD to learn to live together way, way back. And that I contend leads to a different attitude here toward race. We are not without racism, no country is in fact, but we have never had a race riot. Canadians riot over important **** - Hockey and the Stanley Cup.

 

[Master PO]

Save it for someone else. Being opposed to a fraudulent President is quite reasonable. More reasonable than hero worshipping a liar.

I hope this works out for you because I'm sure you believe there are thousands of Yemeni refugees just waiting to come to your town and kill everyone. Trump says it, so it must be so.

its sad, you have allowed the election to corrupt yourself.

 

[Harshaw]

If you and Matchlight want to recommend that the WH ignore a judge's ruling, then by all means do it. Keep me out of it.

:roll:

Here's an example of what Master PO just said:

its clear, since you are no longer are on the side of reason anymore since nov 8

No one's "recommending" anything; in fact, the last sentence of my post which you just quoted was:

Pointing out that it's something they COULD do doesn't mean it's something that I, matchlight, or anyone else thinks they SHOULD do.

No one, either, is "including" you in anything; we're responding to your posts, which is what happens on a message board, particularly a debate message board. If you don't want responses and counterpoints to your posts, don't post on a debate message board.

So, to put it succinctly:

Save it for someone else. Being opposed to a fraudulent President is quite reasonable.

Yes, it is, but being so knee-jerk opposed to him that you take leave of reason isn't. Why do you let HIM get so far under your skin that it's affecting your ability to think straight? That's really on YOU, not him.

If you're going to oppose an unreasonable, capricious President, it's doubly-incumbent upon you to do so with disciplined rationality.

 

[iguanaman]

If that's your argument, the originally intended 90 days are substantially over and soon to run out.

So why do we need an order at all, now?

Were the new procedures implemented? If not, why not?

There are no new procedures that was just another lie. The world knows Trump is a liar and no one will believe a thing he says....EVER. What could go wrong with that?

 

[Fearandloathing]

its clear, since you are no longer are on the side of reason anymore since nov 8, you don't understand what i mean

Wait. What?

Because someone disagrees with you they are "no longer on the side of reason".

Listen, I worked in one form of communications or another for almost 40 years. If people aren't "getting" what you say, it's either because its bull**** o you're saying it wrong.

But I kind of liked how you tried to make it the other person' fault. You should apply at the White House

 

[Harshaw]

Wait. What?

Because someone disagrees with you they are "no longer on the side of reason".

Listen, I worked in one form of communications or another for almost 40 years. If people aren't "getting" what you say, it's either because its bull**** o you're saying it wrong.

But I kind of liked how you tried to make it the other person' fault. You should apply at the White House

In this case, Tres was indeed being unreasonable. I pointed out exactly how a few times.

 

[Master PO]

Wait. What?

Because someone disagrees with you they are "no longer on the side of reason".

Listen, I worked in one form of communications or another for almost 40 years. If people aren't "getting" what you say, it's either because its bull**** o you're saying it wrong.

But I kind of liked how you tried to make it the other person' fault. You should apply at the White House

no, i used to be able to talk with Tres, in a calm and reasonable fashion on issues, since nov 8 she is no longer that way when trump is involved

as i have stated to her, you can not like trump or his policies, thats perfectly fine, however losing control, foul language and alienating people you once talked too is ridiculous

no person should allow an election to change themselves

 

[Josie]

Listen, I worked in one form of communications or another for almost 40 years. If people aren't "getting" what you say, it's either because its bull**** o you're saying it wrong.

You honestly think those are the only two options when someone doesn't understand what you're saying?

 

[Fearandloathing]

no, i used to be able to talk with Tres, in a calm and reasonable fashion on issues, since nov 8 she is no longer that way when trump is involved

as i have stated to her, you can not like trump or his policies, thats perfectly fine, however to lose control, use foul language and alienate people you once talked too is ridiculous

no one should allow an election to change themselves

I don't do triangles and don't talk about other posters. In fact I believe it's against the rules, if not certainly juvenile.

I was commenting on your logic, or lack thereof.

 

[Master PO]

I don't do triangles and don't talk about other posters. In fact I believe it's against the rules, if not certainly juvenile.

I was commenting on your logic, or lack thereof.

my post had nothing to do with being for trump is reason. but only that i cant have the same communication with a person i once had, because of a presidential election.

 

[gmeyers1944]

To me, humans everywhere on the Planet have human rights under the constitution. I am glad to see our brave progressive judges standing up to the tide of hatred and xenophobia that is so quintasentialy American. Its high time we stopped trying to say an outmoded old document means what it did in 1789, when people wore powdered wigs.

These progressive judges that you so admire are violating their oaths of office.

 

[Master PO]

To me, humans everywhere on the Planet have human rights under the constitution. I am glad to see our brave progressive judges standing up to the tide of hatred and xenophobia that is so quintasentialy American. Its high time we stopped trying to say an outmoded old document means what it did in 1789, when people wore powdered wigs.

i dont see what this has to do with the subject in question.

 

[gmeyers1944]

What does Clinton have to do with this.

Trump said his travel ban was going to be a ban on Muslims. Repeatedly. Now that he has issued a ban, I suspect these judges want to look at it because Trump said his ban was going to be a ban on Muslims. You seem to be really struggling with this, and it isn't complicated.

Show me, in the text of the ban, where it says that.

 

[gmeyers1944]

Good post. If you don't mind me asking, where is your wife from originally? If you'd rather not say, you won't hurt my feelings.

I just find it startling that this EO doesn't include countries which have actually attacked us. It's very possible that a Yemeni refugee has attacked us, I just never remember reading about it. Saudis, yes. Pakistani, yes.

Ask President Obama that question. It is his list.

 

[gmeyers1944]

The president campaigned on banning Muslims and that is relevant and germane to the intent of his hasty travel ban EO .

You need to be watchful when politicians make statements like those that you mention to see if they actually carry them out. There is nothing here to indicate that that happened here.

 

[Moot]

You need to be watchful when politicians make statements like those that you mention to see if they actually carry them out. There is nothing here to indicate that that happened here.

The only thing that stopped Trumps illegal travel ban was the law.

 

[Moot]

Ask President Obama that question. It is his list.

Obama's list didn't ban anyone.

 

[ocean515]

There is no Muslim ban because our courts have blocked both attempts... :roll:

Trump worshipers refuse to believe the multiple videos of Trump and his minions calling the EO a Muslim Ban, of Trump promising a Muslim ban when elected... Must be the rabid right wearing blinders while listening to the wonky rantings of a former Reality TV star... eace

There is no Muslim ban. Rant, rave, kick, scream. It doesn't exist. It didn't exist.

I guess Trump haters will just have to keep barking. I imagine the dog whistles must be deafening to those trained to hear them.

 

[trouble13]

Indeed. Never said otherwise. Doing something lawful doesn't make it OK, either. I agreed with you. Will you agree, or not, with me?

Yes i agree with you that just because something is legal does not make it right. The judge however is not there to ruke if it's right or not, only if its legal.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

 

[gmeyers1944]

The only thing that stopped Trumps illegal travel ban was the law.

I want to keep terrorists OUT.

 

[bluesmoke]

Yes i agree with you that just because something is legal does not make it right. The judge however is not there to ruke if it's right or not, only if its legal.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

Yup...

 

[Moot]

I want to keep terrorists OUT.

Trump's travel ban won't keep them out...it didn't even list the countries of the terrorists that did attack us.