U.S. Politics: It's Torture

[OldGimletEye]

2 hours ago, Swordfish said:

 

I'm actually sort of relieved that these are the conversations that are happening.  Sort of flies in the face of the narrative that they are just out to smite Obamacare and don't care about the consequences.

These are exactly the kind of conversations I'd hope they are having.

And I think, its nonsense to even remotely suggest that the Republicans didn't go out and promote a bunch of basically  dishonest bull about the ACA.

I really hope that is not what you are attempting to suggest here.

[Altherion]

The Establishment Clause is a really long stretch here: the order is not against Muslims in general, it's against countries that are known to harbor people who are hostile to the US. To view it as violating the Establishment Clause would mean that practically any immigration policy which did not treat every religious sect (including both large and small ones) equally would also be in violation which would lead to absurdity. The ACLU has to try, but I doubt they'll succeed.

[The Anti-Targ]

5 minutes ago, Commodore said:

it's pretty well established legal precedent for persecuted religious minorities getting preferred refugee status

not sure how far it's gotten in the courts, but immigration restrictions on these countries have been around for over a year

https://mic.com/articles/166845/the-list-of-muslim-countries-trump-wants-to-ban-was-compiled-by-the-obama-administration#.z4rHraKM6

 

 

 

So basically my Iranian and Iraqi Baha'i refugee friends, who escaped those countries because of State persecution of them because of their religion, and who have recently been able to go back and visit family for the first time in 20 or 30 years because they had been denied passports for that time, are now not able to visit the US under the Visa Waiver Programme.

Nice.

You are right, Obama did open that can of worms. Still doesn't make it constitutional. But perhaps the fact that Baha'is, Jews, Christians as well as Muslims from those countries are all equally inconvenienced by the letter of the law means that despite being arguably objectionable it manages to pass the establishment test.

[OldGimletEye]

20 minutes ago, Commodore said:

My guess is they'll just put a freeze on new ACA enrollment, but allow existing plans to continue. ACA would just die off from attrition as people move to other plans.

And now we can sit here and laugh and ridicule the Republican "plan". I'm sure it's going to be a real howler.

Standby.

[Commodore]

4 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

You are right, Obama did open that can of worms. Still doesn't make it constitutional. But perhaps the fact that Baha'is, Jews, Christians as well as Muslims from those countries are all equally inconvenienced by the letter of the law means that despite being arguably objectionable it manages to pass the establishment test.

meh, the idea that a temporary ban on entry from a half dozen countries where jihadis operate is going to be unpopular is... dubious

not sure how effective it will be, but not losing any sleep over it, as if it's the dawn of fascism or something

[Tempra]

1 hour ago, Mexal said:

It's ok. We'll just look to the other countries we didn't ban, you know, the ones where the 9/11 terrorists came from and the ones who have business ties to Trump. Who needs the Iraqis when we have that?

 

22 minutes ago, Commodore said:

it's pretty well established legal precedent for persecuted religious minorities getting preferred refugee status

not sure how far it's gotten in the courts, but immigration restrictions on these countries have been around for over a year

https://mic.com/articles/166845/the-list-of-muslim-countries-trump-wants-to-ban-was-compiled-by-the-obama-administration#.z4rHraKM6

 

 

 

Damn, I guess Obama knew Trump would be POTUS and placed restrictions only on those countries in which Trump doesn't have business ties.  Obama is like a wizard or something.

[OldGimletEye]

35 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

 

IIRC there is a common(?) view among conservative Christians that the constitution's establishment clause only means preference of one Christian sect over another. It does not apply to non-Christian religions. The USA is a Christian country.

Look up the name David Barton. He has been pushing the idea that separation of church and state is a myth for years. A big hit, with a lot of conservatives I think.

[Reny of Storms End]

18 minutes ago, Tempra said:

 

Damn, I guess Obama knew Trump would be POTUS and placed restrictions only on those countries in which Trump doesn't have business ties.  Obama is like a wizard or something.

You do see a difference in no longer issuing waiver exemptions for travel visas from a country, and banning all travel from the same country right? So it is a fair question to wonder why Trump excluded countries he does business with from his ban, especially considering the difference between each Presidents restrictions.  

[Zorral]

Protests at US airports' arrival terminals:

 

https://twitter.com/search/Protests+airports

which include at least here the taxi workers union.

Chaos from the mess the little hands gang has made:

https://news.vice.com/story/trump-refugee-ban-protests

 

 

[Guest]

I'm sure people will be lining up to assist the US as translators next time we invade some country now that the world sees how Trump treats foreigners that aid the US.

[Tempra]

19 minutes ago, Reny of Storms End said:

You do see a difference in no longer issuing waiver exemptions for travel visas from a country, and banning all travel from the same country right? So it is a fair question to wonder why Trump excluded countries he does business with from his ban, especially considering the difference between each Presidents restrictions.  

Of course I understand the difference.

What I don't understand is why some people would conclude that Trump is furthering his own financial interest by further restricting (banning) immigration from countries that Obama had previously identified as countries waranting visa restrictions.  Liberals are desperately trying to position this policy as an example of Trump acting in his own financial self interest.  This is a pass poor example of a conflict of interest regardless of how poorly conceived the policy is.

[Reny of Storms End]

8 minutes ago, Tempra said:

Of course I understand the difference.

What I don't understand is why some people would conclude that Trump is furthering his own financial interest by further restricting (banning) immigration from countries that Obama had previously identified as countries waranting visa restrictions.  Liberals are desperately trying to position this policy as an example of Trump acting in his own financial self interest.  This is a pass poor example of a conflict of interest regardless of how poorly conceived the policy is.

I don't believe this is about Trump's finicial interests either, just to be clear. However I think it is a legitimate question to ask when you move from removing visa waivers to a straight out ban; could Trump be profiting from this? Maybe the countries already named just happen to coincide with those Trump doesn't do business with. Maybe he only banned those seven countries as a bargaining chip for a better business deal (as in, well if you don't do this for me I will ban all travel from your country). Nothing Trump has done lead me to believe these could be outside of reality. So questions should be asked, and if Trump is simply following in the footsteps of his predecessor that should emerge easily. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

2 hours ago, Martell Spy said:

Trump Has Suspended Due Process for Muslims in America. This Is a Constitutional Crisis.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/01/28/trump_has_suspended_due_process_for_muslims.html

 

I believe the ACLU is already taking action.  If they win we find out how much he plans to pattern after Andrew "the Genocide" Jackson and if Congress will sit on its hands if Trump refuses to abide by a negative ruling from Federal Courts.

[felice]

22 minutes ago, Tempra said:

What I don't understand is why some people would conclude that Trump is furthering his own financial interest by further restricting (banning) immigration from countries that Obama had previously identified as countries waranting visa restrictions.

It seems pretty obvious that Obama was giving Saudi Arabia special treatment because it's a major trading partner (most crucially oil), and I expect there's a significant correlation between countries the US has a lot of trade with and countries where Trump has business interests. There's a big difference between looking out for the US's economic interests and looking out for your own, even if the outcome looks the same.

[LongRider]

Good protest signs are clear and easy to read, like this one;

 

[DunderMifflin]

Protest signs with 80s action movie lines are the best.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

3 minutes ago, Nasty LongRider said:

Good protest signs are clear and easy to read, like this one;

 

+20

[LongRider]

Nice day in California to hold up a sign, nice chant too.

 

[LongRider]

Canada steps up:

Trudeau says Canada will take refugees banned by U.S.

Quote

TORONTO – Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has a message for refugees rejected by U.S. President Donald Trump: Canada will take you. He also intends to talk to Trump about the success of Canada’s refugee policy.

Good luck with that Mr. Trudeau.

[Martell Spy]

Some Republicans oppose Trump immigration order
Many others kept silent, as Dems vented their fury.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/trump-immigration-order-democrats-234312

Trump Says Executive Order Is "Working Out Very Nicely. You See It at the Airports"

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/01/28/trump_says_executive_order_is_working_out_very_nicely_you_see_it_at_the.html

 

This 21-year-old Iranian woman is fighting cancer in the US. Now her father can’t visit her.

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/1/28/14424402/trump-visa-ban-iran-cancer