President of the US Picks

[anon50325502]

It ain’t 343M either. You’re using the wrong letter…

[SkyzykS]

@anon50325502

I’m still waiting to hear how that ginger bitch radicalized in the UK would be banned from travel to the U.S.?

Easy. There is no religious test or extrapolation of existing protections required to prove that he’s a ginger.

Muslim or not, he ain’t coming in. I’m surprised he wasn’t attacked by wild dogs at birth. Just from the picture I want to light him on fire and put him out with a golf club.

[Alrightmiami19c]

@Mufasa

(…due to the PARANOIA over Communism…)

We didn’t do a good enough job. We have a Communist that has gotten 45% of the Democrat primary vote.

[anon50325502]

@pushharder

@push

All of this means nothing if the demographics shift so severely that all of this means nothing to the new demographics.

Push, this is pretty silly my man. I posted the #'s earlier. It was like 1.4% of the U.S. population is Muslim and Europes is like 6% and won’t reach 10% for 30+ years.

*If.

Small word but very important to reading comprehension.

Okay, you got me. I suppose Islam could catch fire in the U.S. even though it hasn’t in 240 years. We should definitely set policy based on that giant if.

[therajraj]

@anon50325502

Punishing an entire group for the actions of a small segment is non-sense. As a gun owner I’m sure you agree.

No country owes non-citizens the privilege of entry into their country.

It’s no more a punishment than England not allowing me to vote in their elections.

[anon50325502]

@pushharder

As a sovereign country we’re really under no obligation to allow anyone into our country. Foreigners do NOT have the right to enter the US. When they are allowed to enter it’s because the privilege is granted them.

What is so difficult to understand about that? What’s with this PC-esque sensitivity I’m seeing from you? Do you honestly think a Indian Muslim or a Kenyan Mormon or a Bolivian Catholic or a Tanzanian atheist have some inherent right to visit the US? As a sovereign nation we can come up with any fucking reason we want to exclude any fucking person we want. We can ban blue-eyed people. Fat people. Skinny people. Russian Eskimos. Martians. Paraplegics. British Crossfitters. Anyone. And the USSC will most likely have nothing to do with it; it’s a legislative decision.

It has nothing to do with PC I am so tired of this shit. You don’t agree so I’m now PC. I don’t like Trump so now I’m for Hillary (not you, but others), etc…

It has nothing to do with an inherent right to visit the United States. It has to do with what the Constitution has to say about limiting government powers and they are pretty darn specific in the first Amendment.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

I don’t give a single shit about Muslims. I have a handful of acquaintances, but I don’t know any personally. The fact that they are Muslim is irrelevant to my stance, which is three-fold:

1. The federal government does not have the authority to stop immigration or travel to the United States base solely on the religion of the immigrant/visitor.

You want to cut off immigration from a specific state or region for strategic defensive purposes, fo for it. That’s fine with me. Stopping a entire group because they praise Allah and not Jesus is antithetical to our founding principles and is an example of how far we’ve fallen.

2. It doesn’t make sense to ban all Muslims for any amount of time. It isn’t a practical or cost-effective strategy.

Kill every member of ISIS. Kill every member of Al Qaeda. Kill every fucking jihadist on the planet. I’ll even help.

3. Religious persecution is morally wrong, period. It’s not okay when the Obama administration tries to force the Little Sisters of the Poor to provide contraception that is against their beliefs and it is wrong when a Trump administration creates a travel/immigration policy that specifically targets Islam.

@pushharder

If I don’t invite you to stop by my place here in Montana are you being “punished?” Really? Will I lose my residential identity if I say, “USMC, I’m not letting you in my front door until I’m convinced Marylanders are swell folks?”

The analogy to a person’s personal property doesn’t hold. It’s your property you can do with it as you please. Congress and the President are limited in what they can do with this sovereign nation. As I said above it is a blatant violation of the 1st.

We are a country of immigrants.

@pushharder

Bullshit.

Whatever.

@pushharder

We are in an hot war with radical Islam and we are in a cold war with practically all of Islam.

Are we in a cold war with the 200M Muslims in India? Come on.

@pushharder

Think it through.

Muslims as a general rule, foreign ones more so than domestic, do not generally inherently share the values that comprise our “national identity.” They can’t.

Neither do scores of other nations/cultures/people on the planet. Are we in a cold war with everyone that, generally, doesn’t share our values?

That is ridiculous.

@pushharder

Sure it is. Simple enough to make a significant impact. Don’t get all lathered up about a British Muslim. If you slam the door on 90% of the Muslims in the world, especially the ones percolating out of the couple dozen problem Muslim countries, you should roughly eliminate 90% of the risk of a legal immigrant/tourist committing mayhem within our borders.

No. This is you moving the goal post. We (not you and I) were discussing a 100% travel/immigration ban to stop a terrorist attack from abroad in the United States. Because if even just one jihadist gets here they can cause serious damage. That is the justification for a complete ban that Theraj wants to be permanent (and he’s an actual Trump support, not a fence sitter).

Again, for the at least 3rd time now if you want to create a travel ban out of a specific state or even region for strategic defensive purposes, fine. That is not what Trump or Theraj wants to do.

@pushharder

Will you nail John Oxford, the Muslim radical from Liverpool? Maybe not. Will you lower your risk anyway? Why the hell wouldn’t you?

Not what was being discussed. I’m pretty fine and onboard with:

1)Overhauling immigration
2)Temp ban for entire states regions for strategic defensive purposes

Never said anything to the contrary.

@pushharder

I’ve a feeling if you’d lost a loved one recently in oh say…that town in…California…yeah, California…San sumthin…San Bernard…no, wait, I’ve got it…San Bernardino…yeah, that’s it! Anyway if you’d lost yourself a loved one to the legal immigrant, cold-hearted, murdering Muslim bitch, Tashfeen Malik – the Pakistani/Saudi syphilitic cunt who is now burning in hell next to history’s other mass murderers – you might just be more reasonable and less kissy-kissy about the “punishment” a poor, lil ol Muslim from India might experience from a “Now Jes Hold on a Minute, Abdul” statement from the US State Department.

You’re starting to sound an awful lot like one of those liberals you love so much.

“I’ve a feeling if you’d lost a loved one recently in oh say…that town in…Connecticut…yeah, Connecticut…New sumthin…Newtron…no, wait, I’ve got it…Newtown…yeah, that’s it! Anyway if you’d lost yourself a loved one to the cold-hearted, murdering, Catholic bitch, Adam Lanza – the former student at St. Rose of Lima Catholic School in Newtown who is now burning in hell next to history’s other mass murderers – you might just be more reasonable and less kissy-kissy about the “punishment” a poor, lil ol gun owner that wants to own a half dozen AR-15s might experience from a “Now Jes Hold on a Minute, responsible gun owner” statement from the US State Department.”

@pushharder

What’s the distinction? Because we ALL know distinctions are important, don’t we?

There is no distinction. The Obama administration created a policy that violates the 1st. A Trump administration wants to create a policy that violates the 1st.

@pushharder

Good grief, do you ever need another lesson on the importance of distinctions.

Good grief, it’s amazing how such an ardent fighter for the princples laid out in the Constitution can’t see how creating an immigration policy that specifically excludes a religion isn’t a violation of the 1st amendment.

@pushharder

Soooooo…WWII internment of American citizens of Japanese descent = temporary travel ban on Muslims?

Holy fooking bovine, dude.

No. You’ve pulled this completely out of context.

@pushharder

A temporary ban on foreign Muslim immigrants and tourists is NOW banning their religion? Good. Fucking. Grief.

It’s a clear and blatant violation of the 1st. Good God man.

@pushharder

All foreign Muslims are not evil but so many of them are that we must take precautions – at least temporary precautions that may even hurt the feelings of some folks who compare this relatively benign measure to that of the internment of Japanese Americans.

Uhuh. Nowhere did I say you don’t need to take precautions, shssss.

@pushharder

Sheesh, you need to start thinking this through or I might have to start butchering you like I did Sloth awhile back. And I don’t want to do this because you really are a smart, reasonable person.

I agree with many of the things you’ve typed, but here is the issue:

All of those posts you quote were directly related to the conversation TheRaj and I were having regarding a complete and permanent ban on Muslim immigration and travel to the United States.

You can out of left field from a completely different perspective.

Anyway, as I said earlier:

Freedom > security.

First, they came for the Muslims, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Muslim.

Then they came for the Buddhists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Buddhists.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

@therajraj

No country owes non-citizens the privilege of entry into their country.

It’s no more a punishment than England not allowing me to vote in their elections.

Seriously, try reading the freakin Constitution.

[anon50325502]

@pushharder

A temporary ban on foreign Muslim immigrants and tourists is NOW banning their religion? Good. Fucking. Grief.

You would be banning their entry based solely on their religion.

Violation of the 1st, sorry.

[anon50325502]

@pushharder

Doesn’t work that way. Read TB’s posts to smh.

I’m not even remotely qualified or even interested in getting into the legal minutia surrounding a potential SCOTUS challenge.

Trumps plan violates the first, plain as day.

[anon50325502]

Constitutional scholars: Trump's anti-Muslim immigration proposal is probably...

Map: The countries that ban arrivals based only on religion

I’ll save you the read, the # is zero.

[anon50325502]

@pushharder

@anon50325502

You’re starting to sound an awful lot like one of those liberals you love so much.

“I’ve a feeling if you’d lost a loved one recently in oh say…that town in…Connecticut…yeah, Connecticut…New sumthin…Newtron…no, wait, I’ve got it…Newtown…yeah, that’s it! Anyway if you’d lost yourself a loved one to the cold-hearted, murdering, Catholic bitch, Adam Lanza – the former student at St. Rose of Lima Catholic School in Newtown who is now burning in hell next to history’s other mass murderers – you might just be more reasonable and less kissy-kissy about the “punishment” a poor, lil ol gun owner that wants to own a half dozen AR-15s might experience from a “Now Jes Hold on a Minute, responsible gun owner” statement from the US State Department.”

It’s not analogous because you are failing to make the distinction between citizens and foreigners.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

How can Congress make any law that creates a religous test without violating the 1st?

Would it ever reach SCOTUS? I have no idea. Would it be ruled against by SCOTUS? Again, no idea. I’m just reading the words and I don’t see how you can create an Immigration Act that denies entry based solely religion.