President of the US Picks

[SkyzykS]

‘Where this hatred comes from and why we will have to determine. Until we are able to determine and understand this problem and the dangerous threat it poses, our country cannot be the victims of horrendous attacks by people that believe only in Jihad, and have no sense of reason or respect for human life.’

Can you believe the buffoonish gall of that moron?

Why the fuck would anybody ever say something so stupid. This guy is a complete dick.

I need to apologize to SMH, Sloth, etc. I really thought that you guys were just tantrum throwing cunts, but I now realize the error of my ways.

[smh_23]

[quote=“pushharder, post:975, topic:215570, full:true”]
Methinks some don’t understand “religious tests” well enough to pontificate with authority and accuracy.[/quote]

Thus far in this thread there are two such posters, and you are one of them. I think it’s clear, on the combined evidence of…

1. What I had to say about the Establishment Clause yesterday, and

2. This post of yours I’m quoting

…that you are going to have some serious reading to do in the unlikely event that you choose to upgrade this disagreement from hokey-wordsalad-devoid-of-reasoned-argument to, you know, actual debate. Let’s begin by observing that this…

Telling Homer W. Abdul Mohammad from Tajikistan that he might have to hold off on his visit to a topless swimming pool in Vegas until the US can get a grip on entry procedures for folks from countries around the world where a huge percentage of the population scream “Death to America” with the slobber cascading down their chins like the blood from their prophet’s 10 year old former virgins’ inner thighs after he “married” them is not akin to failing to swear in your local city councilman because he’s a Jehovah’s Witness.

…doesn’t mean anything. At all. It doesn’t even approach the periphery of a legal argument, and I regret to inform you that the question of a policy’s Constitutionality is, by definition, a legal question. If you’d like to back up and on the substance address one of my posts about Trump’s ban vis-a-vis the Establishment Clause, plenary powers, etc., please feel free to do so. Keeping, of course, the following in mind:

– If a law, program, or policy is discriminatory on its face – and one would be hard pressed to find a better example of such a policy than a provision designed to identify and ban one group of religious believers and not any others – then the pronged Lemon Test is abandoned in favor of strict scrutiny. Good luck with that (here I pause to chuckle while thinking about the term “narrowly-tailored”; again, good luck with that).

– "The clearest command of the Establishment Clause is that one religious denomination cannot be officially preferred over another.” Larson v. Valente.

– “The ‘establishment of religion’ clause of the First Amendment means at least this: neither a state nor the Federal Government […] can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another.” Everson v. Board of Education of the Township of Ewing.

Now, contrary to the nonsense you hammered into your keyboard previously, a government policy designed to disfavor (exclude) one religion and no others is indeed a policy designed on its face to distribute official preference and dis-preference. This would undoubtedly be clear to you if Donald’s name were Achmed and his proposal involved disfavoring Christian worshipers in an arm of official federal policy. Note what this previous sentence says about the present state of your rational faculties.

So, if you’d like to do this – and I doubt very much that you would – go ahead and square the prenominate quotations with Trump’s proposed ban. Otherwise, we will take this…

[quote]
I’m starting to love the idea of the Muslim ban not because of “bigotry” towards Muslims but because of who it pisses off – outside of Muslims.

Actually starting to revel in it, mind you.[/quote]

…for what it is: an admission that you no longer care about right or wrong, stupid or not [we have already established beyond doubt that Trump’s proposal, like the man himself, is incredibly stupid], Constitutional or unconstitutional. That, in short, you have spent so much time in the intellectual sewer as to no longer be bothered by the smell.

[2busy]

Please explain.

Having been in the Twin Towers for a job interview at Cantor Fitzgerald the week before 9/11, I have no problem with preventing further attacks from people that believe only in Jihad.

[thunderbolt23]

@pushharder

@smh_23

Anyway, this thread – particularly you, TB, Sloth, Drew, Aragorn – like the broader election cycle it’s mirroring, has reconfirmed me in the belief that a loose centrist party uniting (at least on a majority of the large issues) every liberal to my right with every conservative to your left would run this country for the next century…and to the benefit and prosperity of all.

@thunderbolt23

A confederacy of competent, bright people whose median is centrist (even as the individuals themselves comprising said confederacy are not specifically centrist) is the exact tonic needed.

Oh Madison! Oh Adams! Where art thou?

Well, by golly, there right here being so “reasonable” in their quest for the pinnacle of erudition as they look down their noses at the unwashed masses who seek not the “tonic” of centrism.

Good Lord - the next time you write a clear sentence will be the first time.

More to the point, there’s nothing elitist about the idea of wanting centrist governance, nor is it contrary to anything Madison would have wanted, nor is it antithetical to what the “unwashed masses” want.

But you especially whiff on Adams (surprise, surprise), who was very much oriented toward elitism and far less democratic.

But then, you’d have to read Adams, and God knows you can’t be bothered to do anything like that.

[Bismark]

David Petraeus: Anti-Muslim bigotry aids Islamist terrorists

Trump and his ilk are playing right into the hands of al-Qaeda and ISIL strategists.

[2busy]

Please name something Western Civilization does that does NOT play into the hands of al-Qaeda and ISIL strategists.

[MaximusB]

Not going to jump into this political mosh pit but, keep in mind that the SCOTUS ruling on Obamacare surprised us all.

Also keep in mind that it only passed because it was ruled a tax, something Obama said it wasn’t when he was selling it to the people.

In other words, Obama acted like a snake to pass his legacy, I would categorize Trump as a king cobra.

[SkyzykS]

What is or is not constitutional changes with the times. Some parts are emphasised, others completely ignored.

[therajraj]

@Bismark

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/david-petraeus-anti-muslim-bigotry-aids-islamist-terrorists/2016/05/12/5ab50740-16aa-11e6-924d-838753295f9a_story.html

Trump and his ilk are playing right into the hands of al-Qaeda and ISIL strategists.

If we have to censor ourselves and suppress free speech, haven’t they already won?

Gotta keep people out who are antithetical to your culture.

[smh_23]

@pushharder

@smh_23

a government policy designed to disfavor (exclude) one religion and no others is indeed a policy designed on its face to distribute official preference and dis-preference.

Easily handled by naming nationalities rather than a religion. You get yourself lathered up for no good reason.

Next.

Uh, no. Not at all. Not even close.

That isn’t a “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States,” which is what Trump proposed – in writing, no less – and therefore what we are discussing.

When you say “next,” do you mean that you’re moving on to the next Trump hill you can climb, try feebly and failingly to defend, and then quickly die on?

[therajraj]

Doesn’t Trump continually push the importance of negotiation? Well any good negotiator starts with heavy demands (all muslims) then could reasonably negotiate that down to the 50 Muslim countries

[smh_23]

@pushharder

@smh_23

That isn’t a “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States,” which is what Trump proposed

It’s close enough to accomplish the goal if – IF – the religious tests deal were to hold water the in context of the subject.

They would very clearly hold water, but no, this would not be “close enough to accomplish the goal,” and if you believe it would, you’re living in la-la land.

First, let’s note that, no, this scheme has exactly nothing to do with what Trump proposed and therefore what we’re discussing. What Trump proposed was unambiguous in its particulars. And unconstitutional. Full stop. You appeared to want to object to this fact, but now, unable to do so, you’re trying something else out: look at this other thing, which Trump didn’t propose… It’s irrelevant. But even if it were relevant:

– If I recall correctly, seven of the eight people directly involved in the Paris attacks were French or Belgian nationals, and of those seven, all but one were born in Europe. There are millions of Muslims in the UK alone. This would be an even stupider add-on to an idea that was stupid to begin with.

– More importantly, it doesn’t matter, because your solution – which, again, wouldn’t come remotely close to accomplishing Trump’s plainly-stated goal – would discriminate among religions in both effect and intention exactly inasmuch as it worked, and it would therefore be subject to an Establishment Clause challenge and the Lemon Test (which it would not pass). The preference/dispreference does not have to be facial, and good luck convincing this court that your moratorium on travel from only Muslimy countries does not entangle policy and religion.

Anyway, it doesn’t really matter because it isn’t what Trump said he wants. What he said was clear, and it’s equally clear that he not only isn’t remotely intelligent enough to figure out whether or not it’s Constitutional – he also, like his fanboys, doesn’t give a shit.

[smh_23]

@pushharder

@smh_23

– If I recall correctly, seven of the eight people directly involved in the Paris attacks were French or Belgian nationals, and of those seven, all but one were born in Europe. There are millions of Muslims in the UK alone. This would be an even stupider add-on to an idea that was stupid to begin with.

Big deal. The San Bernardino killers and others are examples of counterweights to your notion that nationalities don’t matter. Good grief.

No, the notion is that it doesn’t accomplish the fucking goal that Donald Trump laid clearly out. Trump waved an apple around, you pulled out a ham sandwich and tried to talk about it, because your new thing is to get mercilessly beaten while trying and miserably failing to defend Donald Trump.

Your proposal doesn’t matter, because it isn’t what we’ve been talking about for the last two days. It’s a red herring to distract form the fact that you wanted to, but couldn’t, defend the actual policy proposal form the actual presidential candidate. In any case, it doesn’t accomplish the goal. It doesn’t keep Muslims out. And it would still lose before the Supreme Court.

You’re too sure of yourself. You simply don’t have the experience at this point in your life to be this sure.

That’s an easy thing to type out, but it isn’t lost on anybody that there was a disagreement on substance here, and you danced around as if you were going to defend your position in that disagreement, and then you didn’t do it. Because you couldn’t. Appeal to experience is, on PWI, always – always – a sign of a decided defeat.