Who here is willingly voting for Trump knowing he’s a dictator?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fire Cape [Only registered and activated users can see links. Click Here To Register...]

What legal precedent?

You have already said it was illegal so I have no idea why the legality of the public policy is even up for discussion. There is no reason that Trump had to choose this particular listing of countries. You are confusing prior legal precedent with prior administrative policy.

---

I do genuinely mean legal precedent as well. In the sense that the Obama list had already had legal challenges and survived. Trump's usage of the list also obviously had its challenges, but one of the ways it was able to get around the civil rights act is thanks to the fact that it is a list based around national security, which is something the existing immigration law explicitly allows as a valid reason to deny groups of individuals from entry. The fact that Obama's national security list already survived its challenges makes it incredibly easy to simply reuse considering it is one that was already OKed.

Also RE: it being illegal, no, I think there was a misunderstanding there. What I was saying was not that the usage of the list to ban individuals is something that is or was illegal, but rather the initial enforcement attempts regarding permanent residents.

The uninformed bit maybe is the wrong word yeah, but what I meant was specifically just the fact that you might not be aware of the existing provisions regarding national security in the US immigration law and the fact that Obama's list was explicitly labelled as a list of countries that present a national security risk.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fire Cape [Only registered and activated users can see links. Click Here To Register...]

The reason for the ban has nothing to do with religion or terrorism. These countries were chosen to be watched by the Obama administration because they are failed states. Trump used them in his list because he is an idiot. I doubt he even knows where they are.

But to say that it is a ban on Muslims when the largest Muslim countries are not even included is absurd.

---

Again, the list was chosen because it was far easier than making a new one. Considering we both agree it has nothing to do with terrorism, what do you believe the purpose was if not targeting a particular religious group?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fire Cape [Only registered and activated users can see links. Click Here To Register...]

Firstly my degree is actually in law not software engineering so I consider myself quite informed, at least to the point that I know that most of those countries (excluding Iran) have a small number of Muslims comparatively to India, Pakistan, Indonesia, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia and a bunch of others.

Secondly you will probably find most of those countries are in the list because they have been involved in recent civil conflict. For example the Yemen and Syrian civil wars are still very active...

Not defending Trump here. He is an idiot and this ban was stupid. But to call it a Muslim ban when it includes only a small number of the worlds Muslims isn't good faith.

---

Okay okay, I might be totally wrong here, but I feel like I recall that the name "Muslim ban" originates from him saying it as such himself:

[Only registered and activated users can see links. Click Here To Register...]

Again, might be a different context, but that was the impression I was under.

Truth be told -- we're fucked no matter what brainless puppet they stick in the white house, lol. At the risk of sounding super tin-foil-hat enabled, there's a greater agenda at plan and the political face that is chosen to carry out said agenda is negligible in comparison.

I can appreciate you voicing your opinion, because it is your right to do so, but idk what you expected posting it on Rune-Server.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jordan Belfort [Only registered and activated users can see links. Click Here To Register...]

Truth be told -- we're fucked no matter what brainless puppet they stick in the white house, lol. At the risk of sounding super tin-foil-hat enabled, there's a greater agenda at plan and the political face that is chosen to carry out said agenda is negligible in comparison.

I can appreciate you voicing your opinion, because it is your right to do so, but idk what you expected posting it on Rune-Server.

---

[Only registered and activated users can see links. Click Here To Register...]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Women [Only registered and activated users can see links. Click Here To Register...]

[Only registered and activated users can see links. Click Here To Register...]

---

Had someone preach to me (wrongfully lol) for what felt like hours about the Freemasons but when I showed them this same picture, all I got was "wHaT DoEs ThAt hAvE to Do WiTh FrEeMasOnS". Conversation ended once they caught on, lol.

Country is fucked regardless

[Only registered and activated users can see links. Click Here To Register...]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Omar [Only registered and activated users can see links. Click Here To Register...]

I do genuinely mean legal precedent as well. In the sense that the Obama list had already had legal challenges and survived. Trump's usage of the list also obviously had its challenges, but one of the ways it was able to get around the civil rights act is thanks to the fact that it is a list based around national security, which is something the existing immigration law explicitly allows as a valid reason to deny groups of individuals from entry. The fact that Obama's national security list already survived its challenges makes it incredibly easy to simply reuse considering it is one that was already OKed.

Also RE: it being illegal, no, I think there was a misunderstanding there. What I was saying was not that the usage of the list to ban individuals is something that is or was illegal, but rather the initial enforcement attempts regarding permanent residents.

The uninformed bit maybe is the wrong word yeah, but what I meant was specifically just the fact that you might not be aware of the existing provisions regarding national security in the US immigration law and the fact that Obama's list was explicitly labelled as a list of countries that present a national security risk.



Again, the list was chosen because it was far easier than making a new one. Considering we both agree it has nothing to do with terrorism, what do you believe the purpose was if not targeting a particular religious group?

---

Sorry it was late here I do realise now in relation to the legality you were talking about the particulars of the enforcement. I am not 100% familiar with US law or particulars but I do fail to see the reasoning that the ban was a 'Muslim ban' whether there was precedent or not. I think the ban was likely always in the picture because of the danger and poor relations the US has with these countries, the fact they happen to be Muslim is just secondary imo. They are not even the same type of Muslim (Iran is mostly Shia). The ban looks to me like it was played by Trump as a Muslim ban for the benefit of his supporters.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arham [Only registered and activated users can see links. Click Here To Register...]

Okay okay, I might be totally wrong here, but I feel like I recall that the name "Muslim ban" originates from him saying it as such himself:

[Only registered and activated users can see links. Click Here To Register...]

Again, might be a different context, but that was the impression I was under.

---

That may be the case but I think that Trump here is capitalising on his supporters Islamophobia, in other words I don't belive the list is actually religiously motivated (if it were like I said it would include more countries like Pakistan). He is just saying it is for the benefit of his supporters.

As a Canadian, I am terrified of how divided America is these days. I don't want a civil war to spill over the border, and we sure as hell won't be able to handle the number of asylum claims. This isn't 1860 no more; this'll be far uglier than Syria. Rather than play into your divisiveness, I have four questions for Trump supporters:

• What policies of his drew you to him?

• Has he successfully implemented these policies?

• What policies of his do you oppose?

• What measurable impact have his policies had on your life and on the lives of those close to you?

I absolutely hate the way political discourse in America encourages people to talk past each other rather than directly to one another. You see it in this thread: You're a Nazi! You're brainwashed! On the list you go! Why aren't you asking each other what compels you to fall on your side? How are you supposed to understand your "adversaries" (can't you all be Americans again?) if you don't even ask them what *they* think? By pushing people away, you're only reinforcing their existing beliefs and making it harder to ever reach out to them in the future. Take a page from [Only registered and activated users can see links. Click Here To Register...], the Black man who persuaded KKK members out of being racist. You'll never persuade someone that you're right by starting the discussion with name-calling. I usually hate this "both sides" bullshit, but as far as destructive discourse goes, both sides are to blame.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by King Waldo [Only registered and activated users can see links. Click Here To Register...]

As a Canadian, I am terrified of how divided America is these days. I don't want a civil war to spill over the border, and we sure as hell won't be able to handle the number of asylum claims. This isn't 1860 no more; this'll be far uglier than Syria. Rather than play into your divisiveness, I have four questions for Trump supporters:

• What policies of his drew you to him?

• Has he successfully implemented these policies?

• What policies of his do you oppose?

• What measurable impact have his policies had on your life and on the lives of those close to you?

I absolutely hate the way political discourse in America encourages people to talk past each other rather than directly to one another. You see it in this thread: You're a Nazi! You're brainwashed! On the list you go! Why aren't you asking each other what compels you to fall on your side? How are you supposed to understand your "adversaries" (can't you all be Americans again?) if you don't even ask them what *they* think? By pushing people away, you're only reinforcing their existing beliefs and making it harder to ever reach out to them in the future. Take a page from [Only registered and activated users can see links. Click Here To Register...], the Black man who persuaded KKK members out of being racist. You'll never persuade someone that you're right by starting the discussion with name-calling. I usually hate this "both sides" bullshit, but as far as destructive discourse goes, both sides are to blame.

---

You're being far too logical for trump supporters mate. The guy isn't even a politician, what does he know about policy? Trump and his supporters are the exact opposite of real American ideals, or at least the facade which I was lead to believe in initially. You cannot reason with them... they're too far gone. I seriously think the guy has caused irreparable damage to our society. There's no way to just forget about everyone and everything that came out of the woodwork. The absolute shit stains of America support this man and that's it.

Sorry Canada but you don't know what it's like living in a country with these people. I'm just relieved that I'm white and don't have to deal with real America, where you have to live in fear if you're a minority.

this crazy guy put it best:

[Only registered and activated users can see links. Click Here To Register...]