The President Obama Thread - Part 6

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

Responsibility for what? All he's doing is getting attention back for himself and coddling a bunch of people who don't seem to understand what the word "temporary" means.

Bruh, one of the Koch brothers and freaking Cheney came out to say the law is BS. You think you are on the right side if those two don't have your back? GTFOH

 

[Thundercrack85]

It's not unconstitutional.

Oh yes it is. You cannot give one religious group preferential treatment. Also you know, suspending due process.

It's also in violation of other federal laws.

Thank God for checks and balances.

Never mind that the law is amoral, poorly-concieved and executed in the single dumbest way possible.

 

[ADollarADay]

Oh yes it is. You cannot give one religious group preferential treatment. Also you know, suspending due process.

Thank God for checks and balances.

Never mind that the law is amoral, poorly-concieved and executed in the single dumbest way possible.

Constitution only applies to citizens and possibly legal and illegal residents of the US. I have never seen it applied to visitors, though you can prove me wrong. A temporary ban is also within states rights, and the US can completely shut its borders if it wants (war times for example).

Never mind the fact that it's not really a Muslim ban, it's just what the media is driving you to believe, it is hard for me to believe what's unconstitutional about it. Perhaps you can enlighten me?

 

[Webfoot Hero]

Bruh, one of the Koch brothers and freaking Cheney came out to say the law is BS. You think you are on the right side if those two don't have your back? GTFOH

Who died and made you a moderator for this forum? Just because I share a slightly different belief on the issue doesn't mean I have to leave. Otherwise this becomes a liberal bubble where you get nothing but incestuous talking.

 

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

Who died and made you a moderator for this forum? Just because I share a slightly different belief on the issue doesn't mean I have to leave. Otherwise this becomes a liberal bubble where you get nothing but incestuous talking.

First off, if I was a mod I'd have banned you a long time ago for the simple fact that you're an Oregon fan. I don't even like college football but some lines just don't need to be crossed.

Secondly, chill the f*** out. GTFOH is an expression not something I literally expected you to do.

I enjoy your opinion and several other of the conservative leaning posters here in this forum for exactly the reason you stated. But the fact that a Koch brother and Cheney came out against this stuff doesn't give you pause?

 

[ADollarADay]

First off, if I was a mod I'd have banned you a long time ago for the simple fact that you're an Oregon fan. I don't even like college football but some lines just don't need to be crossed.

Secondly, chill the f*** out. GTFOH is an expression not something I literally expected you to do.

I enjoy your opinion and several other of the conservative leaning posters here in this forum for exactly the reason you stated. But the fact that a Koch brother and Cheney came out against this stuff doesn't give you pause?

Koch brothers' agenda is obviously open borders and cheap labor. Trump is not your typical politician and typical republican. He destroyed the republicans and democrats on his inauguration speech.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Constitution only applies to citizens and possibly legal and illegal residents of the US. I have never seen it applied to visitors, though you can prove me wrong. A temporary ban is also within states rights, and the US can completely shut its borders if it wants (war times for example).

Never mind the fact that it's not really a Muslim ban, it's just what the media is driving you to believe, it is hard for me to believe what's unconstitutional about it. Perhaps you can enlighten me?

Before we go any further, can we dispel this ridiculous and dishonest notion that this is not a Muslim ban? Trump ran on a Muslim ban. This targets Muslim countries and gives preferential treatment to Christians.

Also here is Giuliani talking about how they crafted this Muslim ban.

[YT]NF2k11QQW0g[/YT]

Now that we have that out of the way, let's move on to the legality of this ridiculous order. Parts of the constitution do apply to all people in the United States, including the 5th and 14th Amendments. If you want precedent use Google, or talk to a lawyer.

Secondly, legal precedent and the 1st Amendment make it clear that the government can not favor one religion over another. This law gives one religious group preferential treatment. It will not hold up in court.

And that's without getting into how it violates other preexisting federal laws (e.g. The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965). Again, it will not hold up in court.

If you want to support this stupid, ill-conceived, malicious law that is fine. But let's at least stop pretending it's not a ban targeting a specific religion.

 

[ADollarADay]

Before we go any further, can we dispel this ridiculous and dishonest notion that this is not a Muslim ban? Trump ran on a Muslim ban. This targets Muslim countries and gives preferential treatment to Christians.

Also here is Giuliani talking about how they crafted this Muslim ban.

[YT]NF2k11QQW0g[/YT]

Now that we have that out of the way, let's move on to the legality of this ridiculous order. Parts of the constitution do apply to all people in the United States, including the 5th and 14th Amendments. If you want precedent use Google, or talk to a lawyer.

Secondly, legal precedent and the 1st Amendment make it clear that the government can not favor one religion over another. This law gives one religious group preferential treatment. It will not hold up in court.

And that's without getting into how it violates other preexisting federal laws (e.g. The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965). Again, it will not hold up in court.

If you want to support this stupid, ill-conceived, malicious law that is fine. But let's at least stop pretending it's not a ban targeting a specific religion.

No it's not, I already debunked that hot mess in the other thread. It is not a muslim ban. Feel free to read the other thread to educate yourself.

The constitution is applicable if you're in the US - legally or illegally - if you're not in the US and are coming in as a visitor - as I mentioned - then the constitution does not apply to you. Feel free to use google or talk to a lawyer, as you so eloquently put it.

There is no religious preferential treatment, that's baloney. Again I proved it in the other thread and the constitution does not apply to a visitor coming in. The same is true about your federal law strawman argument.

I haven't said it if I support it or not, but your narrative is flawed, and apparently based on 2 minute youtube video where Giulianni explains how the EO is not a muslim ban.

 

[Fading]

It's probably best not to get involved, but.

Trump promises a ban on Muslim's on the campaign trail. Trump calls Giulianni to ask how to make a Muslim ban legal. Trump signs an EO temporarily banning people from primarily Muslim regions that were NOT part of any modern day attacks on US soil. EO also gives preferences to other religions.

Why is this still being discussed/defended. If it walks, and talks like a duck. Even if the EO doesn't say "Muslim ban" in big bold letters, it doesn't have to. The intent, and effects are clear. It's hurting our stance with other nations, seperating families, and further dividing the nation, and riling the racists.

Worst of all, it's unprovoked. Did they have intel that one of these countries were planning an attack? Did one of these countries attack the North America recently? Nope? It's just Trump finding a way to deliver on a stupid, moronic campaign promise, legally as he can. So keep arguing semantics, while the anti-Muslim crowd gets re-riled back up. This week a Mosque set on fire in Texas, and a Mosque shot up in Canada, but nope, arguing the wording of the bill over it's real world effects, and consequences is what's more important

Sadly I keep seeing people say this doesn't prove Trump's racist. As if every other racist thing he's said these past few months didn't prove that already.

 

[SV Fan]

Did one of these countries attack the North America recently? Nope? It's just Trump finding a way to deliver on a stupid, moronic campaign promise, legally as he can.

It's not even a case of did the country attack us, did any citizen of one of these countries attack us(under their own free will). None of the Muslim who have committed terrorist attacks on us in the past 20 years came from any of the countries Trump banned

 

[summerteeth]

It's not even a case of did the country attack us, did any citizen of one of these countries attack us(under their own free will). None of the Muslim who have committed terrorist attacks on us in the past 20 years came from any of the countries Trump banned

I keep hearing this...but uh...this happened...and that's just off the top of my head. I'm against this EO but c'mon media is so lazy it's maddening.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Ohio_State_University_attack

 

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

No it's not, I already debunked that hot mess in the other thread. It is not a muslim ban. Feel free to read the other thread to educate yourself.

The constitution is applicable if you're in the US - legally or illegally - if you're not in the US and are coming in as a visitor - as I mentioned - then the constitution does not apply to you. Feel free to use google or talk to a lawyer, as you so eloquently put it.

There is no religious preferential treatment, that's baloney. Again I proved it in the other thread and the constitution does not apply to a visitor coming in. The same is true about your federal law strawman argument.

I haven't said it if I support it or not, but your narrative is flawed, and apparently based on 2 minute youtube video where Giulianni explains how the EO is not a muslim ban.

Funny thing is, we have a very accomplished lawyer on this here forum who goes by the sn Matt. I can't wait till he pops by here or the Trumpster fire thread and proceeds to lay the verbal smackdown on you with actual law and precedent because he does so to folks on both sides of the aisle when they talk out of their ass about US law.

 

[Thundercrack85]

No it's not, I already debunked that hot mess in the other thread. It is not a muslim ban. Feel free to read the other thread to educate yourself.

The constitution is applicable if you're in the US - legally or illegally - if you're not in the US and are coming in as a visitor - as I mentioned - then the constitution does not apply to you. Feel free to use google or talk to a lawyer, as you so eloquently put it.

There is no religious preferential treatment, that's baloney. Again I proved it in the other thread and the constitution does not apply to a visitor coming in. The same is true about your federal law strawman argument.

I haven't said it if I support it or not, but your narrative is flawed, and apparently based on 2 minute youtube video where Giulianni explains how the EO is not a muslim ban.

I have never seen a post so devoid of truth. You think tourists in America don't have a right to due process, or that they can be discriminated against due to their religion? What lawyer are you consulting?

The only thing you have proved here is a lack of reading comprehension and a fundamental misunderstanding of law.

 

[terry78]

I would hate bang Judge Pirro. Just throwing it out there.

 

[Joeyjojo72]

DJ it won't matter. You're dealing with people who have no interest in facts, only alt facts. Breitbart and Infowars (et al) tell them exactly what they want to hear, and that's how they like it. Give it up.

 

[Lily Adler]

Judge Pirro is the truth bringer, being friends with Donnie and all. She helped him pick out Melania.

 

[samsnee]

Obama goes kitesurfing

http://www.vulture.com/2017/02/richard-branson-takes-president-obama-kitesurfing.html

 

[Legendver2]

Obama goes kitesurfing

http://www.vulture.com/2017/02/richard-branson-takes-president-obama-kitesurfing.html

Look at that smile! Must be helluva feeling to have the burden of the world off your shoulders after 8 years!

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/proud-citizen-barack-obama-reportedly-141018270.html

If he gets chosen... Man that would be a heck of a thing to be called for jury duty and the guy next to you is Obama.

 

[Silvermoth]

Yeah that would be crazy. What would you say to him?

"Hey Obama do you still hang out with Spider-Man?"

 

[Lighthouse]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/proud-citizen-barack-obama-reportedly-141018270.html

If he gets chosen... Man that would be a heck of a thing to be called for jury duty and the guy next to you is Obama.

It makes me curious how the Secret Service handles a situation like this.

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

It makes me curious how the Secret Service handles a situation like this.

Does he get to bring his Anger translator Luther is the bigger question?

 

[samsnee]

Watched David Letterman’s new show on Netflix where Obama was his first guest. I miss having an adult in the White House who can use words beyond “amazing” and “great”, is self-reflective and doesn’t blames everyone, and actually has respect for the office.

 

[Doug_Moore]

Obama is yesterday's news. He needs to go away like Bush.

 

[routhman]

Obama is yesterday's news. He needs to go away like Bush.

Why is there the strange expectation that a public servant must retire from their position as a leader of public service when their presidency ends? The man’s life is far from over. He can choose to do whatever he’s passionate about, and the Democrats will accept his leadership eagerly.