February 9, 2017 at 10:27 pm #27131edselehrParticipant
That’s why there’s a vetting process.
That’s why Obama strengthened the vetting process in 2011.
You’re willing to have America turn it’s back on thousands of needy refugees because some might be terrorists, and some of those might defeat our vetting processes, and some of those might commit atrocities in this country?
What about the certain atrocity of not caring for desperate people in need? (I say to the staunch advocate of the unborn.)
Yes, there is risk in letting people onto our shores. We should do everything practicable to identify those who come to harm us – and I believe that is happening now (Read this and this story of how it is done).
But we should not trade our national tradition of compassion for a false sense of invulnerability. Halting this kind of immigration does not end our risk of terrorist attacks (which are actually more likely to be committed by fellow Americans). But it does violate our core principles.February 9, 2017 at 10:34 pm #27132radiodorkSpectator
Nowhere in the constitution is it required for the US to accept ANYONE into this country. We do it as a courtesy and a tradition. Trump will take this issue to the Supreme Court and win.February 9, 2017 at 10:38 pm #27133skepticalParticipant
Are you willing to bet your farm, Dork?February 9, 2017 at 10:44 pm #27134paulwalkerParticipant
The idea of an inclusive United States is more important than the idea that an extremely small proportion of immigrants will be terrorists.
There. Done. Good job Washington State. Never been more proud of my native State.
A great win for the US, but it isn’t over yet. Need to continue the fight for independent freedom for those around the world. But I think this win today is just the beginning of a new ideal that will show that the U.S. is still the beacon of freedom, not an isolated continent that deflects outsiders.February 10, 2017 at 12:08 am #27138February 10, 2017 at 6:43 am #27141edselehrParticipant
Dork, first of all I don’t believe for a minute that you actually read the Constitution. But assuming you did, I’m sure you’re familiar with:
Article 1 Section 9 Clause 8
Article 2 Section 1 Clause 7
Article 2 Section 4
Article 3 Sec. 2
Article 3 Section 3 Clause 1
Article 4 Section 2 Clause 1
Article 6 Clause 2
Article 6 clause 3
Trump needs to be mindful of these particular parts of the Constitution. But, I doubt, like you, he’s ever set eyes on the entire document.February 10, 2017 at 9:39 am #27144
Broadway and Pope Bacon think Assad supporting their contentions is somehow a good thing. Assad is, literally, a murderous dictator who rules via an iron fist.
An independent judiciary providing checks and balances to the executive brand, as outlined in the U.S. Constitution, is a bad thing. It must be political, it must be partisan, etc.
Your habitual lies, hypocrisy, and utter cowardness on this forum aside, you are two scary motherfuckers.February 10, 2017 at 2:36 pm #27150
By the way, Dork.
Trump is not appealing this to the Supreme Court.
Because he’d lose. The ban is illegal and likely unconstitutional.
The White House is instead, feverishly working on a new form of the ban that will pass legal muster. Something a semi competent executive would have done the first time around; rather than throwing this half assed, ill thought out, moronic, and clearly illegal executive order out into the world and letting it create utter chaos.
Trump’s quite the businessman.February 10, 2017 at 3:23 pm #27154proud2baconservativeSpectator
Did this judicial activism disappoint or please terrorists?February 10, 2017 at 3:33 pm #27155VitalogyParticipant
The terrorists are most pleased with the ban. It aids recruitment.February 10, 2017 at 3:34 pm #27156
You’re the dildo using the words of a murderous tyrant as justification for supporting an illegal and unconstitutional order.
Because, fear, apparently.
For such a bunch of swaggering, gun toting, manly men, you Trump supporters are quite the bunch of pussies.February 10, 2017 at 3:38 pm #27157
bacon you stupid fucking moron, the appeals court decision is not ‘judicial activism.’ You need to go back to fucking high school civics you asshole. A decision by four judges across two courts, evenly split politically, does not qualify as ‘judicial activism.’ Get your head out of your butthole you idiot and quit regurgitating what right wing websites have to say. Have you ever had an original albeit moronic thought of your own?February 10, 2017 at 7:11 pm #27161proud2baconservativeSpectator
These were anti-Trump judges playing politics.
There will be ways around this. I expect a new bullet-proof EO is being constructed. But I suspect the Left will seek to undermine it, once again putting politics and their irrational hatred of Trump ahead of national security.February 10, 2017 at 7:39 pm #27162
It’s a day late and a dollar short. They will have to water it down and include Saudis or it won’t fly. Clearly the drumpf administration is incapable of hiding their racist views and drump’s trying to protect those places where he has business ties are going to bring him down.February 10, 2017 at 8:40 pm #27165VitalogyParticipant
Those judges were hard core conservatives appointed by fellow conservatives.
Face it, the drumpf administration is amateur hour at the least. They literally have no clue what they are doing.
It’s chaos by the minute and it’s disturbing.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.