Donald Trump was right
You kids are useless

Ftfy

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Feb 10 2017 01:00pm

Seems triggered, mods aren't useless they just doesn't agree with your regressive insanity
Rip child

"how dumb some of you're"

what do these Obama facts really have anything to do at all with taking immigration down to literal zero though?

and what do they have to do with making sure the proper agencies get a look at it to flush out potential legal issues that can be easily written around?

and what does it have to do with making sure that ALL of the countries that should be on there are?


what misinformation are you speaking to directly? do you think people don't recognize that terrorists come from these countries? or that properly handled that immigration can be more safely achieved or in some cases needs to be ground to a halt?


i swear the number of times i've heard dumb fuckin kids says "obama did it" or "the law says Trump can do it" as if that's even something we're fucking talking about is troubling to me. if i read your post right and you think THAT is the topic of discussion you are the idiot working of whatever information you're spoonfed and i feel sorry for you. that is not at ALL what the discussion is. at alll.

Donald J. Trump

Omg it's enraged and doesn't understand the basics of the argument going on in the media and on this forum. Instead it uses abased rhetoric.


I'll use keywords to help you out.

1. It was the starting point for selection of said areas of terrorist activity.

2. The proper agency's were notified and reviewed the EO.


3. The countries were all ready listed as terrorist hotspots through homeland security. The countries were not randomly selected.

4. Misinformation of the media and on this forum on how this ban came forward.

no one is arguing the "source" of the countries on the list. if you thought they were its because you were arguing against someone as smart as you are. Obama formulated a list, and never put it into effect because he didn't want to upset the apple cart, which is something Trump didn't care about, and now its in court, shocker.

Obama never instituted a "ban", he reduced immigration from a single country, Iraq, and at the LOWEST it was 162 people IN A MONTH. that's why no one got upset, because Visas weren't denied and properly vetted people were still let in, over the time of the "obama ban" that Conway talked about after the "BGM" we let in thousands of Iraqis, thousands.

And no, not all of the proper agencies were notified and no review was done by many people who should have seen this. It was widely reported that it caused chaos because many people weren't sure how to enforce this or what it entailed. so lie to yourself if u need to, but.... wrong.



but sure if you need to have a "terrorists come from these places" and "obama thought so too" conversation with other 6th graders in your civics class be my guest. but over at the adult table people will be talking about the specifics and how to make it work, not the polarized bullshit conversation you want to have backed by laws you don't understand. i await a real brain buster or a response from you. im sure the MSM is to blame for you not having an actual intellectual thing to add.

This post was edited by thesnipa on Feb 10 2017 01:54pm

i guess you got your Trump University diploma

What would have stopped the same judicial obstruction? He acted within his explicit authority, cited the act that was being used. When Obama did the same thing in 2011, he actually did it in secret and didn't even inform congress. Lets keep in mind that Santara and fellow libertarians spent the last 8 years decrying how Obama wasn't just acting within the executive authorities, but expanding those edges more rapidly than any president. Trump acted within the safe zone of explicit powers and didn't even tap his ambiguous grey areas or ignore basic checks on his power to shield it like hushing it up.

Partisan judges on the other hand get to throw a wrench in it by inventing a test of religious animus based on media criticism, a precedent they could use to apply arbitrary judicial review to any law for any reason. Perhaps black people feel explicitly neutral and nonracial welfare cuts were motivated by racial animus because republicans hate black people because CNN told them so. Where does that slippery slope end? And unlike a dispassionate and neutral objective application of law leading to a legitimate question of equal protections violations, the lower courts only accomplish this challenge by ludicrously selectively ignoring their own law precedents in a buffet style pick and choose when it suits them- the lower court needed "irreparable harm" to issue an injunction, and completely failed to satisfy the four pronged test, on an act that by definition is reversible and hence cannot be irreparable. So they simply handwave it and ignore that necessity. But when the challenge reaches the higher court, the burden is on the government to provide the balance of harms in their favor and argue irreparable harm from the hold, to which the 9th circuit pounces on them and declares they can't prove real examples of such harm under the strict definitions. Its a mockery of the rule of law.

Did you read the law? I'm guessing not, because you couldn't even understand the reading of the law.

Homeland security stated the EO was reviewed. Don't let the msm hit you on your way out.