Forum Thread

Travel ban

Reply to ThreadDisplaying 11 Posts
  • Independent
    Ft.myers, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    The Supreme court approved the "travel ban" and said that Trump was allowed to do such. the vote was 5 to 4 opposed.

    Anyway this shows that the Supreme Court also consist of idiots; they approve that these people are a danger to national security; while Trump's objective was pure racial and religiously motivated.

    Yes, this is another nail in the coffin of Democracy ; that is what you get if you give a president way too much power, which may lead to dictatorship, which Trump wants and likely gets, especially if the supreme court gives him victories like this.

    Just because of this, the "asshole" will become even more arrogant and obnoxious and more motivated to become an "dictator" . This sure will make America not great again.

  • Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Kenosha, WI
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Another move by CONServatives to get and keep the brown and black out. Anyone white of German, Russian, or of white person descent wanting into the USA, come on in, no strings attached! Except by 2040, whites will be a minority. Scary to the CONS.
  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Portland, OR
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Just imagine if Democrats showed up in 2014 and 2016 and Merrick Garland instead of Neil Gorsuch was able to cast the deciding vote on this case.

    Decisions like this are why it's a little difficult for me to "get over" the 2016 election. Elections have consequences and we are going to be living with those consequences for decades to come.

    I hope screwing our country over six ways from Sunday was worth it, Bernie or busters.

  • Independent
    Washington
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    My perspective is with trump, everything is always a catch22. Its pick your poison. It's always picking the lesser of two evils.

    Example of what I mean in relation to immigration.

    1) Today SC sides with trump. It now allows the racist ban to proceed. Trump is now MORE embolden to do even more immigration crap because he truly believes the SC is behind his Jew crack down, opps, I mean immigration crack down

    or

    2) If the SC had rule against him. He would be total pissed off and would double down by abusing his presidential powers in some other way so that immigrants feel his wrath. He would make sure immigrant pay one way or another.

    If the SC has ruled against him, he would just come back at another angle.

  • Independent
    Washington
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    What I think is very very important to understand about trump's and immigration. For trump, Immigration is a do or die issue.

    For trump, it is his GUN or ABORTION issue. He might compromise on guns and abortion, but never will compromise on immigration. He will never settle for anything less than 100% of his demands which includes finding a way to separate families again

  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Portland, OR
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    wwjd Wrote: If the SC has ruled against him, he would just come back at another angle.

    But none of this would have happened had Bernie or busters not overruled the will of the American people and allowed a Republican President and Senate to install a far right-wing jurist to the Supreme Court.

    Elections have consequences and we will live with the consequences of the 2010, 2014, and 2016 elections for decades to come.

    Eventually we have to look ourselves in the mirror and accept that we are to blame for the government and courts we have.

  • Independent
    Washington
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    jaredsxtn Wrote:
    wwjd Wrote: If the SC has ruled against him, he would just come back at another angle.

    But none of this would have happened had Bernie or busters not overruled the will of the American people and allowed a Republican President and Senate to install a far right-wing jurist to the Supreme Court.

    Elections have consequences and we will live with the consequences of the 2010, 2014, and 2016 elections for decades to come.

    Eventually we have to look ourselves in the mirror and accept that we are to blame for the government and courts we have.

    I agree "bernie" voters were a factor that helped push DT over the top, but there was so many other factors happening at the same time. My perception it was a perfect storm of events that peaked a very bad time for HC. If the election were a week before, or a week later, there are good chances HC would have won. In a since she did, she won the popular vote, but in the US that not how the system works.

    Rotten politics held up Obama's nominee. He might still get there if he still wants the job because there is high probability that a democrat will be elected in 2020. It would only be justice to give him a second chance.

  • Independent
    Ft.myers, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    jaredsxtn Wrote:
    wwjd Wrote: If the SC has ruled against him, he would just come back at another angle.

    But none of this would have happened had Bernie or busters not overruled the will of the American people and allowed a Republican President and Senate to install a far right-wing jurist to the Supreme Court.

    Elections have consequences and we will live with the consequences of the 2010, 2014, and 2016 elections for decades to come.

    Eventually we have to look ourselves in the mirror and accept that we are to blame for the government and courts we have.

    Jared, as I've said so many times this whole government structure is asking for trouble; as you noticed, the whole government here can become "one" party; just like what Trump wants. Thus automatically becomes an "dictatorship". Especially if the Supreme Court becomes more and more GOP then even they will promise "loyalty" in the end. As I've said due to solely interpreting the antique Constitution by a zillion lawyers, then it is no longer an black and white law but you can "interpreted" it as you feel like it ; such as the "second amendment" . It is clear that they now interpret it as an Security threat instead of a "religious ban" . Thus exactly as I said piece by piece "dictatorship". Thus the refusal to make the Constitution an "living" up to date document, then you get this situation.
  • Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Tucson, AZ
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Although Bernie's supporters may be part of the problem, the REAL cilprit is Mitch McConnell, who prevented a.vote for highly qualified Merrick Garland for close to a year.

    He has been in the Senate for 30 years, and will likely still be there for a while, which is why its critical for the adults to regain conrol of the Senate.

  • Independent
    Ft.myers, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    that guy in AZ Wrote:

    Although Bernie's supporters may be part of the problem, the REAL cilprit is Mitch McConnell, who prevented a.vote for highly qualified Merrick Garland for close to a year.

    He has been in the Senate for 30 years, and will likely still be there for a while, which is why its critical for the adults to regain conrol of the Senate.

    Guy, I've said so many times that this government structure is flawed; it never should be possible that "one" guy can block the election of such important position. That is what you get by taking over an old English system from 1700, without adapting it to the times regularly.
  • Brooks, AB
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Dutch Wrote:
    t
    Guy, I've said so many times that this government structure is flawed; it never should be possible that "one" guy can block the election of such important position. That is what you get by taking over an old English system from 1700, without adapting it to the times regularly.

    I've been thinking that way since 1992. I put a lot of effort into writing a book about it: first version 2000, second version 2004, third version 2009, fourth version 2017. No political parties, annual elections, but no noisy election campaigns, voting based on character and competence, trusted advisers, and a culture of consultation rather than confrontation. Trouble is that it is so far out-of-the-box, no one wants to hear about it.