His Flatulence hits the crazy button

[Jason Harvestdancer]

This is a test. The ban is temporary and on citizens from those 7 countries for now.

If it is allowed to stand, the administration will take the next step. They'll have established that even legal US residents can lose their rights at the will of the President, and from there...?

Precedent already exists for US citizens to lose their rights at the will of the President.

 

[ideologyhunter]

And of course it all means that we will have far less ability to build coalitions in any foreseeable future -- America First seems to mean America Alone. This burly populist oaf who speaks for us is nauseating to 56% of our own population -- there can't be many (or any) countries whose people will put up with their leaders doing "deals" with him. Well, maybe the Ruskies. Net effect: we claim to be for freedom and against terror, but will be unwilling to ever accept refugees from the countries we implode in our wars of liberation...come join us, Europe, in the freedom crusade.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

One of the big things that sucks about the ban is that Iraq... the country the US broke, is on the ban list, which is unbelievably callous.

This is a test. The ban is temporary and on citizens from those 7 countries for now.

If it is allowed to stand, the administration will take the next step. They'll have established that even legal US residents can lose their rights at the will of the President, and from there...?

Precedent already exists for US citizens to lose their rights at the will of the President.

He wasn't banned because he was a Muslim. While losing his rights is a subject for discussion, it is a Libertarian red herring in this thread. For all of your Devil's Advocating, it is hard to tell if you don't mind an illegal travel ban which also reeks of self interest of the President.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

I suppose it must seem like a red herring, because of the party of the person making the decision. But precedent is precedent, no matter the party of the person making the decision.

It is currently established precedent that the US President has the authority to strip US Citizens of their rights without any review.

Pointing that out in a thread where we are discussing the current president also depriving people of their rights doesn't mean I support the current president's actions.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I suppose it must seem like a red herring, because of the party of the person making the decision. But precedent is precedent, no matter the party of the person making the decision.

It is a red herring due to the broadness of the Executive Order, which is what this thread is about. Sorry for the inconvenience, but feel free to continue to litter in threads about your disapproval of Democrats.

 

[Ford]

I suppose it must seem like a red herring, because of the party of the person making the decision.

Not at all. You've brought up something which is a different situation entirely. Whether you agree with it or not, the justification for the targeting of Al Awlaki is that he had joined Al Qaeda and was involved in planning terrorist operations.

The justification for suspending or revoking the legal status of green card holders from the "banned" countries is simply that they have citizenship in those countries. Whether you have ties to a terrorist organization is irrelevant. Your rights are being stripped not because of what you've done, but because of where you're from.

What happened to Al Awlaki was certainly a questionable move, but that's not the issue here.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

The question that I am bringing up with regards to Al Awlaki is that it is now an established precedent that the US president has the authority to deprive people of their rights, no court activity required. No oversight.

Obama made it possible for Trump to institute this.

 

[Elixir]

Obama made it possible for Trump to institute this.

So the Republican outrage over Obama's "overreach" was simple hypocrisy?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The question that I am bringing up with regards to Al Awlaki is that it is now an established precedent that the US president has the authority to deprive people of their rights, no court activity required. No oversight.

You seem to have mistaken that Presidential power isn't established as being acceptable or unacceptable by the action of a power, but rather by courts when asked to consider it's legality. If Trump off'd four Muslims today, it would not be a viable court argument to say that Obama killed al Awlaki without trial.

 

[Ford]

Obama made it possible for Trump to institute this.

So the Republican outrage over Obama's "overreach" was simple hypocrisy?

No, he just wants to blame Obama for everything.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

So the Republican outrage over Obama's "overreach" was simple hypocrisy?

No, he just wants to blame Obama for everything.

No, I want to say to those who cheered Obama when he did this that they are responsible for Trump doing this.

Every time more power is given to the government, I say "your guy won't always be in charge, eventually the other guy will have this power." That argument never phases people who don't think that far ahead. They they are overcome with woe when the other guy gets the power.

This is me saying "I told you so."

 

[Ford]

No, he just wants to blame Obama for everything.

No, I want to say to those who cheered Obama when he did this that they are responsible for Trump doing this.

So you're throwing out a red herring AND erecting a strawman AND trying to shift blame away from where it lies.

Sorry, but this is all Trump.

 

[Shadowy Man]

No, he just wants to blame Obama for everything.

No, I want to say to those who cheered Obama when he did this that they are responsible for Trump doing this.

Every time more power is given to the government, I say "your guy won't always be in charge, eventually the other guy will have this power." That argument never phases people who don't think that far ahead. They they are overcome with woe when the other guy gets the power.

This is me saying "I told you so."

So, what would you say was the worst Obama executive order?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

No, I want to say to those who cheered Obama when he did this that they are responsible for Trump doing this.

So you're throwing out a red herring AND erecting a strawman AND trying to shift blame away from where it lies.

Sorry, but this is all Trump.

Looks like someone is full of themselves (not you Ford).

I found this quote regarding the killing of al Awlaki.

Because the Government insisted he was dangerous? This is a slippery slope. Serial Killers are dangerous too, but we don't shoot a man dead because we think he is a serial killer. The whole point of a trial is to establish that the person is a danger, broke laws. This whole royal decree via Executive Order is disturbing. Its a power the Executive Branch should not have.

I wonder who wrote that.

Show

Me... October 12, 2011.

That post then led to a spin off here. Jason, maybe you should read that thread. It'll help get rid of that self-righteous strawman of yours.

 

[whichphilosophy]

He's banned entry for citizens of 7 countries associated with terrorism.

A total ban, even permanent residents who leave the country can't come back. (As some found out when they went shopping in Canada.)

In 2011 the previous Obama government delayed immigration from Syria for a 6 month period after 2 Al Qaeda operatives were found living in the USA. Temporary ban or pause is effectively the same thing.

 

[Shadowy Man]

He's banned entry for citizens of 7 countries associated with terrorism.

A total ban, even permanent residents who leave the country can't come back. (As some found out when they went shopping in Canada.)

In 2011 the previous Obama government delayed immigration from Syria for a 6 month period after 2 Al Qaeda operatives were found living in the USA. Temporary ban or pause is effectively the same thing.

Read this:
Entitled "Sorry Mr. President, The Obama Administration Did Nothing Similar to your Immigration Ban":


http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/01/30...-did-nothing-similar-to-your-immigration-ban/

 

[bilby]

In 2011 the previous Obama government delayed immigration from Syria for a 6 month period after 2 Al Qaeda operatives were found living in the USA. Temporary ban or pause is effectively the same thing.

Read this:
Entitled "Sorry Mr. President, The Obama Administration Did Nothing Similar to your Immigration Ban":


http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/01/30...-did-nothing-similar-to-your-immigration-ban/

The current propaganda priority is to make out that what is happening is normal, and just like the things done by previous presidential administrations. The more people they can persuade of this, the less resistance they will get as they push the envelope further and further.

It's salami tactics. They don't try to make us swallow the whole thing at once; they just keep feeding us one thin slice after another, with brief pauses if we push back, until we have swallowed the entire thing without ever really noticing.

 

[Elixir]

Read this:
Entitled "Sorry Mr. President, The Obama Administration Did Nothing Similar to your Immigration Ban":


http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/01/30...-did-nothing-similar-to-your-immigration-ban/

The current propaganda priority is to make out that what is happening is normal, and just like the things done by previous presidential administrations. The more people they can persuade of this, the less resistance they will get as they push the envelope further and further.

It's salami tactics. They don't try to make us swallow the whole thing at once; they just keep feeding us one thin slice after another, with brief pauses if we push back, until we have swallowed the entire thing without ever really noticing.

Exactly. A coup by a thousand cuts. In four years, trumpsters won't even notice that there's no elections*.


* A bit of hyperbole never hurt anyone!

 

[bilby]

The current propaganda priority is to make out that what is happening is normal, and just like the things done by previous presidential administrations. The more people they can persuade of this, the less resistance they will get as they push the envelope further and further.

It's salami tactics. They don't try to make us swallow the whole thing at once; they just keep feeding us one thin slice after another, with brief pauses if we push back, until we have swallowed the entire thing without ever really noticing.

Exactly. A coup by a thousand cuts. In four years, trumpsters won't even notice that there's no elections*.


* A bit of hyperbole never hurt anyone!

The election will merely be temporarily suspended, until the White House is confident that all possibility of electoral fraud has been eliminated.

As a first step in this process, citizens will be issued with Federal identity cards, which clearly state their name, address, citizenship status, ethnic origin, religion, sexuality, date of Republican Party membership, and age; And which, for homeland security purposes, must be presented on demand to any law enforcement or government official.

The cards will, to save time when being examined by police, be emblazoned with a large red letter 'H' for 'Hispanic', 'J' for 'Jewish', or 'N' for 'African American'.

After all, it wouldn't be clever to be soft on crime, and if people have nothing to hide, they have nothing to fear. Right?

 

[whichphilosophy]

In 2011 the previous Obama government delayed immigration from Syria for a 6 month period after 2 Al Qaeda operatives were found living in the USA. Temporary ban or pause is effectively the same thing.

Read this:
Entitled "Sorry Mr. President, The Obama Administration Did Nothing Similar to your Immigration Ban":


http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/01/30...-did-nothing-similar-to-your-immigration-ban/

Whether it is called a pause in admissions for a period of time or it is called a ban for a period of time equates to the same thing.

- - - Updated - - -

Exactly. A coup by a thousand cuts. In four years, trumpsters won't even notice that there's no elections*.


* A bit of hyperbole never hurt anyone!

The election will merely be temporarily suspended, until the White House is confident that all possibility of electoral fraud has been eliminated.

As a first step in this process, citizens will be issued with Federal identity cards, which clearly state their name, address, citizenship status, ethnic origin, religion, sexuality, date of Republican Party membership, and age; And which, for homeland security purposes, must be presented on demand to any law enforcement or government official.

The cards will, to save time when being examined by police, be emblazoned with a large red letter 'H' for 'Hispanic', 'J' for 'Jewish', or 'N' for 'African American'.

After all, it wouldn't be clever to be soft on crime, and if people have nothing to hide, they have nothing to fear. Right?

What a drama queen. Who told you this?