Americans love comforting lies...

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by jkcerda, May 10, 2017.

  1. jkcerda, May 10, 2017
    Last edited: May 10, 2017

    jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #1
    http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/0...onal-if-a-different-president-had-ordered-it/

    yes you can complain about the link and overlook the message because well, it suits you. the only time most here seemingly care about war & due process is when your party is not in office, so you are welcomed.

    EDITED for equality, thanks Sam :D
     
  2. ibookg409 Suspended

    ibookg409

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2016
    Location:
    Portsmouth, NH
    #2
  3. poloponies macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    May 3, 2010
    #3
    Proving what? The whole argument stems on whether it was implemented as a religious ban. That's the general idea, if the person behind it had stated a narrowly-tailored motive it would have been an easier argument to get it implemented.

    Sort of like being fired for your religious beliefs. It's rare that the person who fires you gives you the actual reason for your firing but you can then use their earlier anti-religion statements as supporting evidence for your argument.
     
  4. samcraig macrumors P6

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
    #4
    I think you are being to specific. May I?

    yes you can complain about the link and overlook the message because well, it suits you. the only time most here seemingly care about war & due process is when your party is not in office, so you are welcomed.
     
  5. jkcerda thread starter macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #5
    no worries, you just started following the POTUS on twitter so I am sure you will read far dumber things in the next few days :D
    --- Post Merged, May 10, 2017 ---
    works for me. :D
     
  6. jerwin macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    #6
    The question in my mind is whether any other president could have come up with a narrowly tailored, neutral regulation that would have the same effect has the Trump order. And why they would even bother.

    for the ACLU. "Animus" is the clearest path to victory.
     
  7. webbuzz macrumors 65816

    webbuzz

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2010
    #7
    I call BS, you spend a lot of time in PRSI. :p

    I heard the clip of the ACLU attorney say that. The judge should have laughed him out of the courtroom.
     
  8. ibookg409 Suspended

    ibookg409

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2016
    Location:
    Portsmouth, NH
    #8
    Yeah, but I'm not allowed to address all the stupid **** I find at PRSI. ;)
     
  9. webbuzz macrumors 65816

    webbuzz

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2010
    #9
    The pre-existing conditions thread is hunting over bait. :)
     
  10. ibookg409 Suspended

    ibookg409

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2016
    Location:
    Portsmouth, NH
    #10
    LOL. Right?
     
  11. jerwin macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    #11
  12. Chew Toy McCoy macrumors regular

    Chew Toy McCoy

    Joined:
    May 13, 2016
    #12
    Ban foreigners who are pantone color 14-1118-TPX or darker.
     
  13. jerwin macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    #13
    This is the part of the thread where someone posts a family guy meme.
     
  14. jerwin macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    #15
    Beware of false friends.
     
  15. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #16
    The Blaze. Oh lord.

    That's a complete reinterpretation of the ACLU's argument.

    Their point is that the law's animus—apparent because of statements by Trump and others—may be focused on a single protected group, violating the U.S. Constitution.

    Trump and Cap't 9/11 made the mistake of telling the truth that the travel ban was aimed at Muslims, making the ban illegal.

    The animus of a law can matter in discrimination claims.
     
  16. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #17
    If it focused on a single protected group then all Muslim majority countries would have been banned, not the case, and so the argument is bankrupt.
     
  17. Zenithal macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2009
    #18
    Only if the other person didn't constantly go on public record denouncing immigration.
    --- Post Merged, May 10, 2017 ---
    And the countries that weren't banned directly fund terrorism that affects US troops and US cities. Saudi Arabia ring a bell? A backwards nation that spreads Wahabbism and funds terrorism. The US is well aware of it, but they are our biggest buyer. Pocket before country, eh?
     
  18. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #19
    No, a ban that targets some countries, but not all Muslim countries could still have as its guiding animus a classification against a protected group.

    You don't have to act prejudiced against all people in a protected class to be prejudiced.

    Moreover, even if a law appears neutral on its face, it can have a disparate impact on a protected group, and it's clear that the ban does this as it keeps 85 million people from traveling to the United States.

    The travel ban is prejudicial security theater written by people who knew that a Muslim ban would be illegal so they put a tiny veil of legality around it.

    And, unfortunately, too many American people are like toddlers—they really think that you disappear when you play peak-a-boo.
     

Share This Page