Do the US still have the question on the entry form that says something like "Are you here to commit a terrorist act or otherwise harm US citizens?"
That must weed out a few.
Do the US still have the question on the entry form that says something like "Are you here to commit a terrorist act or otherwise harm US citizens?"That must weed out a few.
Or how about you give them a load of information and you get some sort of checking before you arrive and then a few questions when you get there..
The opinion of this so-called judge, which essentially takes law-enforcement away from our country, is ridiculous and will be overturned!
is this tweet from #dumpf sailing close to the wind of contempt of court ?
Do the US still have the question on the entry form that says something like "Are you here to commit a terrorist act or otherwise harm US citizens?"That must weed out a few.
At the age of 17, on a school exchange trip a contemporary of mine thought it would be funny to tick yes to that and the drugs question.
I'd imagine he still doesn't talk about it...
The opinion of this so-called judge, which essentially takes law-enforcement away from our country, is ridiculous [s]and will be overturned![/s] I will appeal to a higher court
in a move that well take longer to argue in court, than the original ban would have lasted anyway.
in a move that well take longer to argue in court, than the original ban would have lasted anyway.
at which point we can conclude that all the bad dudes have already made it in and the point of the ban will be lost as he can work out what was going on without his ban.. I can't wait till the next judge tells him that
Trump needs some sort of intelligence agency that would find threats and then brief him on it. I'm surprised no-one has thought of this.
In a movie scenario some black ops government team would fake some terrorist outrages to reinforce Trumps position. In the new alternative facts Breitbart world we live in how likely is this?
In the new alternative facts Breitbart world we live in how likely is this?
Who needs an actual terrorist attack when you can just make one up, if only they had though of that, maybe in Bowling Green
😆
Do the US still have the question on the entry form that says something like "Are you here to commit a terrorist act or otherwise harm US citizens?"That must weed out a few.
Obviously not that's why they need a 90 day ban.It's a well know fact that terrorists get bored and don't bother if they are made to wait 90 days.
What do you think the chances are of a terrorist attack happening soon in the USA? And a smiley trump with i told you so. A cynical view would be to think that this would work better than any appeals court to get his way.
He doesn't need a ban, he just needs to be seen to be actively working on getting a ban. If 'the establishment' stops him that's not a problem for him.
Well in a country that averages more than one mass shooting per day, it's a matter of time till someone appropriately foreign does one.
Who needs an actual terrorist attack when you can just make one up, if only they had though of that, maybe in Bowling Green
To be fair that tactic isn't new or unique to the Trump administration. In 1964 the made up "Gulf of Tonkin incident" was used by Lyndon B. Johnson's administration as an excuse for more direct US involvement in the Vietnam War.
Obviously making up an incident in a US town which any reporter can stroll into is likely to be considerably less effective than making up an incident in a war zone thousands of miles away in a different continent.
What do you think the chances are of a terrorist attack happening soon in the USA? And a smiley trump with i told you so. A cynical view would be to think that this would work better than any appeals court to get his way.
A terrorist attack, by people of a certain religion, right about now would really help Trump out.*
Would be straight out of his buddy Putin's handbook.
*well unless they were Saudis again. As that would just be awkward.
To be fair that tactic isn't new or unique to the Trump administration. In 1964 the made up "Gulf of Tonkin incident" was used by Lyndon B. Johnson's administration as an excuse for more direct US involvement in the Vietnam War.
Ah so last week then...
So what we could probably say is it's not a common occurrence in recent history and certainly a lot harder in the internet age - as ninfan proved with the detailed statement providing no supporting evidence to the claim.
Mike you are on fire 😆
What do you think the chances are of a terrorist attack happening soon in the USA? And a smiley trump with i told you so. A cynical view would be to think that this would work better than any appeals court to get his way.
He will get his Bush moment no doubt. Only this time the war-fans will want nukes. Look out for stories of Mexican Muslims, a two-fer....
What is the next step in the judicial process?
Will the justice department go direct to the supreme court or is there an intermediate stage?
As I understand it, decisions of
the supreme court take absolute precedence and cannot be ignored,rejected or over-ruled by any person or organisation or government body, including the pres.
It is possible for the legislature to dissolve the supreme court; would the orange one even hint at that?
I'm surprised that none of his team had sufficient understanding of 'civics' to explain how the judicial system works.
Judge Robarts' appointment was approved 99-0 by congress; trump received less than 50% of the vote - not that trump will give that any thought.
There really is a grim fascination about this.
What is the next step in the judicial process?
Trump realises when you don't get legal to check the Exec Orders it's not going to end well?
....... certainly a lot harder in the internet age
I don't think you need the magic of the internet to disprove a non-existent massacre in a Kentucky town.
Trump needs some sort of intelligence agency that would find threats and then brief him on it
But even before he was in post he said daily briefings weren't necessary. He knows EVERYTHING.
The rot has started from within for a while now so it is inevitable that President Trump will have to fight to repair them. Mind you the entire Western world is rotting from within.
It looks like liberalism has been replaced by religious liberalism of the wrong kind that challenges democracy. The liberals, in order to maintain their liberal ideology in a democracy, have actually muddled themselves by embracing the one religion that is the nemesis to democracy. The signs are all there that liberalism has never been able to challenge strong religious ideology coz they embrace them. As a result, it is very difficult (actually unable with no ability) for liberalism to critically challenge another set of religious ideology because their basic assumption is flawed. Liberalism can only challenge those ideology that can directly be defined by them. Religious ideology is their hidden nemesis. So if they (liberals) cannot be challenged them (religion) and in turn project their "fear" by scapegoating others (in this case "right wing" or "right wing" govt. then the problem take roots. When this happens nobody will be able to or dare to challenge them and the wrong religion ideology will take root. For example, in all strong religious nations the law cannot challenge the religious ideology and as a consequence the religion become the law.
The problem is when the religion ideology becomes too strong or try to dominate, due to liberal support, when the fight back begins it will very hard and difficult because the roots have become strong.
History taught as bit too. For example, the mighty mongol, strong as they were, were all converted within three or four generations into some sort of religious fanatic, not only that but the entire (majority were converted except some parts of China) empire were converted.
Question is what if western liberalism falls into religious fundamentalism with the latter taking hold of the most powerful nation (finger to the button) in the world?
Does that mean the entire world will have to convert because of the domino effect?
Who will reap what they sowed for their future generations?
Most of those who started it (liberalism and religious liberalism) might probably be long gone by then so will they leave a place of previous existence in peace or mess?
😀
Chew you ought to get a special prize for that one .
He's been hitting the Palm drink hard.
@chewk - offer solutions if you want to be taken seriously - not just critism. That's lazy and anyone can do it. 1/10 to you. 😉
Bravo chewkw.
Read that three times now and my brain has blue screened every time. 😆
You [i]seem[/i] to be making some play on the standard right-wing caricature that liberals are weak, mild, passive snowflakes who just roll over in the face of shouty people (religious or otherwise)?
Just because the lefties are more likely to reach for a pen than a sword doesn't make them weak.
Have a read of this, estemely well written and thought out comparison of Hitler and Trump:
[url= https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/normalization-lesson-munich-post/ ]Against Normalisation[/url]
Sorry, it's a bit long, and if you have the IQ of a radish you probably are not going to be able to understand what is being said (sorry Nin and Chew...... 😉
However, it makes significant points about attempting to silence media and free speach just because you don't happen to agree with the points they are shouting. In fact, it demonstrates why truly free speech is at the core of real democracy.
Just to bring a a bit of levity to the thread.
Melissa McCarthy makes a surprisingly good Spicer.
In fact, it demonstrates why truly free speech is at the core of real democracy.
Indeed.
Though you'll see more than a few on here who give the impression they'd happily silence any dissent.
Brexit & the judges? Enemy of the people..
Travel ban & the judges? Ditto..
Marching & demonstrating? You had your say at the ballot box & you lost so shut the F up..
Falling out with the media because they ask awkward questions & then opining said journos should be sacked..
More than a few hints of a totalitarian political model.
Supporters of these ideals should hang their heads in shame!
& I think we all know who those posters are.....
I wonder what their feelings would be if they were on the losing side?
Marching & demonstrating? You had your say at the ballot box & you lost so shut the F up..
You don't get the difference between freedom of speech and freedom to smash shit up?
I've no problem with Starbucks being trashed - sh1t coffee, though they may redeem themselves with their refugee promise..
Answer the question though ninfan:
How would you feel if you'd been on the losing side & you were being told to "just suck it up buttercup & go back to your life! You lost"! ?....
Obviously, willfull destruction of property is never good but peaceful demonstration is a right that should be protected & treasured.
Eco's checklist of the 14 common features of fascism - we can tick them off one by one going through the Trump/Brexit future.
1.The cult of tradition. “One has only to look at the syllabus of every fascist movement to find the major traditionalist thinkers. The Nazi gnosis was nourished by traditionalist, syncretistic, occult elements.”
2.The rejection of modernism. “The Enlightenment, the Age of Reason, is seen as the beginning of modern depravity. In this sense Ur-Fascism can be defined as irrationalism.”
3.The cult of action for action’s sake. “Action being beautiful in itself, it must be taken before, or without, any previous reflection. Thinking is a form of emasculation.”
4.Disagreement is treason. “The critical spirit makes distinctions, and to distinguish is a sign of modernism. In modern culture the scientific community praises disagreement as a way to improve knowledge.”
5.Fear of difference. “The first appeal of a fascist or prematurely fascist movement is an appeal against the intruders. Thus Ur-Fascism is racist by definition.”
6.Appeal to social frustration. “One of the most typical features of the historical fascism was the appeal to a frustrated middle class, a class suffering from an economic crisis or feelings of political humiliation, and frightened by the pressure of lower social groups.”
7.The obsession with a plot. “The followers must feel besieged. The easiest way to solve the plot is the appeal to xenophobia.”
8.The enemy is both strong and weak. “By a continuous shifting of rhetorical focus, the enemies are at the same time too strong and too weak.”
9.Pacifism is trafficking with the enemy. “For Ur-Fascism there is no struggle for life but, rather, life is lived for struggle.”
10.Contempt for the weak. “Elitism is a typical aspect of any reactionary ideology.”
11.Everybody is educated to become a hero. “In Ur-Fascist ideology, heroism is the norm. This cult of heroism is strictly linked with the cult of death.”
12.Machismo and weaponry. “Machismo implies both disdain for women and intolerance and condemnation of nonstandard sexual habits, from chastity to homosexuality.”
13.Selective populism. “There is in our future a TV or Internet populism, in which the emotional response of a selected group of citizens can be presented and accepted as the Voice of the People.”
14.Ur-Fascism speaks Newspeak. “All the Nazi or Fascist schoolbooks made use of an impoverished vocabulary, and an elementary syntax, in order to limit the instruments for complex and critical reasoning.”
I've no problem with Starbucks being trashed
I'm fairly sure this was said with tongue in cheek, but if not, that response is as bad as ninfan's fallacious assertion that protests are violent and no-one should resort to protest because it's all been sorted out at the ballot box.
Most definitely was slowoldman.....!
How would you feel if you'd been on the losing side & you were being told to "just suck it up buttercup & go back to your life! You lost"! ?....
i don't recall the anti-Obama riots, do you?
i don't recall the anti-Obama riots, do you?
He probably wasn't as extreme as the current muppet, was he? It's good that you recognise that he is extreme and divides people.
Most definitely was slowoldman.....!
Yeah but you were serious about their coffee being shite, right?
i don't recall the anti-Obama riots, do you?
No, I don't.
I wonder though, if that was because Obama was a lot more agreeable to a whole lot more folks....& Trump is a whole lot more disagreeable?
Trump certainly seems able to polarise & divide opinion on a far greater scale than Obama ever di.
What do you think?
Yeah but you were serious about their coffee being shite, right?
Their coffee is gopping!
I wonder though, if that was because Obama was a lot more agreeable to a whole lot more folks....& Trump is a whole lot more disagreeable?
Is it because he's black?
You see, for some strange reason there's little outrage when lefties crackdown on immigration:
ninfan - Memberi don't recall the anti-Obama riots, do you?
most people don't know that because it didn't get covered
