Trumps purpose was never a Muslim ban

[Care4all]

To me, it seems like a very foolish and silly move and statement that the admin is making with it....

It's like saying, because there is a future murderer who is a Christian living somewhere in your city or your State, that everyone who is a Christian in your city or your State should be locked up... or punished some how because there is a future murderer of the same faith, living near them, somewhere....???

The eo does not use religion as an indicator.

Either way Joe, it still makes no sense...let me take out the religion indicator....it still seems rather fruitless and just silly....

It's like saying, because there is a future murderer living somewhere in your city or State, that everyone in your city or your State should be locked up... or punished some how because there is a future murderer living near you/them, somewhere....???

 

[Vandalshandle]

Stuff thats said during campaigns does not count Timmy. If it did Hillary would have been disqualified by all the crap Obama said about her in 2008. He said shes COMPLETELY out of touch with Americans and on the take.
Now suddenly in 2016, hes got good things to say about her? and he made this woman Secretary of State?
You got to be kidding me, In 2008 she was unqualified to run a hot dog stand. So here is how much, things taken out of context during presidential debates really count.



For some reason people say thing during campaigns, but it is important to look at the context. You are being fucking disingenous. You damn well know Trump is trying to protect the American people from terrorists who might come in among refugees. Yet you guys get a sad sack excuse of a Judge to obstruct an American President doing his job.

It only takes one ISIS terrorist to get through as a refugee (out of the thousands being let in) to use a Mack Truck to mow down a high school band marching in a local Christmas parade.

It only takes one native-born American to do that, too.

Maybe we shouldn't add to that number with immigrants?

Stuff thats said during campaigns does not count Timmy. If it did Hillary would have been disqualified by all the crap Obama said about her in 2008. He said shes COMPLETELY out of touch with Americans and on the take.
Now suddenly in 2016, hes got good things to say about her? and he made this woman Secretary of State?
You got to be kidding me, In 2008 she was unqualified to run a hot dog stand. So here is how much, things taken out of context during presidential debates really count.



For some reason people say thing during campaigns, but it is important to look at the context. You are being fucking disingenous. You damn well know Trump is trying to protect the American people from terrorists who might come in among refugees. Yet you guys get a sad sack excuse of a Judge to obstruct an American President doing his job.

It only takes one ISIS terrorist to get through as a refugee (out of the thousands being let in) to use a Mack Truck to mow down a high school band marching in a local Christmas parade.

It only takes one native-born American to do that, too.

So we shouldn't try to prevent the ISIS terrorist from doing that because it's possible for a native born American to do it also?

Just pointing out the hypocrisy. ISIS isn't our only danger in the U.S., and it's time to stop pretending that foreign terrorists are killing us in greater numbers than anyone else.

Say you're camping, and a mosquito and a bear both get into the tent. You're going to kill the mosquito first?

Are you seriously telling us the muslims, the fucking people blowing shit up, killing people with axes, and attacking everything in the west are the fucking Mosquito's and the Christians are the bears?

Are you seriously this fucking dumb?

Say you're at the mall with your wife and kid and there are 2,000 Christians in there shopping. And there are two or three muslims. What are the odds you need to worry about the Christians being the ones that will set off a bomb or go on a shooting spree?

Well, if you were in Ireland, and the IRA is starting up again, i guess that the odds would be pretty good that Catholics are going to bomb the place...

 

[ricechickie]

Stuff thats said during campaigns does not count Timmy. If it did Hillary would have been disqualified by all the crap Obama said about her in 2008. He said shes COMPLETELY out of touch with Americans and on the take.
Now suddenly in 2016, hes got good things to say about her? and he made this woman Secretary of State?
You got to be kidding me, In 2008 she was unqualified to run a hot dog stand. So here is how much, things taken out of context during presidential debates really count.



For some reason people say thing during campaigns, but it is important to look at the context. You are being fucking disingenous. You damn well know Trump is trying to protect the American people from terrorists who might come in among refugees. Yet you guys get a sad sack excuse of a Judge to obstruct an American President doing his job.

It only takes one ISIS terrorist to get through as a refugee (out of the thousands being let in) to use a Mack Truck to mow down a high school band marching in a local Christmas parade.

It only takes one native-born American to do that, too.

Maybe we shouldn't add to that number with immigrants?

Stuff thats said during campaigns does not count Timmy. If it did Hillary would have been disqualified by all the crap Obama said about her in 2008. He said shes COMPLETELY out of touch with Americans and on the take.
Now suddenly in 2016, hes got good things to say about her? and he made this woman Secretary of State?
You got to be kidding me, In 2008 she was unqualified to run a hot dog stand. So here is how much, things taken out of context during presidential debates really count.



For some reason people say thing during campaigns, but it is important to look at the context. You are being fucking disingenous. You damn well know Trump is trying to protect the American people from terrorists who might come in among refugees. Yet you guys get a sad sack excuse of a Judge to obstruct an American President doing his job.

It only takes one ISIS terrorist to get through as a refugee (out of the thousands being let in) to use a Mack Truck to mow down a high school band marching in a local Christmas parade.

It only takes one native-born American to do that, too.

So we shouldn't try to prevent the ISIS terrorist from doing that because it's possible for a native born American to do it also?

Just pointing out the hypocrisy. ISIS isn't our only danger in the U.S., and it's time to stop pretending that foreign terrorists are killing us in greater numbers than anyone else.

Say you're camping, and a mosquito and a bear both get into the tent. You're going to kill the mosquito first?

Are you seriously telling us the muslims, the fucking people blowing shit up, killing people with axes, and attacking everything in the west are the fucking Mosquito's and the Christians are the bears?

Are you seriously this fucking dumb?

Say you're at the mall with your wife and kid and there are 2,000 Christians in there shopping. And there are two or three muslims. What are the odds you need to worry about the Christians being the ones that will set off a bomb or go on a shooting spree?

Goodness, no. That would be dumb. My post wasn't comparing Muslims and Christians, although it's telling that you would read it that way.

My post was comparing ISIS (somehow masquerading as refugees) and American-born murderers (who just exist here already). The numbers bear out that we're more likely to be killed by a fellow American than a foreign-born terrorist. But keep patrolling your malls full of "Christians" at Christmas. That seems to be an important concern to you.

 

[JoeMoma]

To me, it seems like a very foolish and silly move and statement that the admin is making with it....

It's like saying, because there is a future murderer who is a Christian living somewhere in your city or your State, that everyone who is a Christian in your city or your State should be locked up... or punished some how because there is a future murderer of the same faith, living near them, somewhere....???

The eo does not use religion as an indicator.

Either way Joe, it still makes no sense...let me take out the religion indicator....it still seems rather fruitless and just silly....

It's like saying, because there is a future murderer living somewhere in your city or State, that everyone in your city or your State should be locked up... or punished some how because there is a future murderer living near you/them, somewhere....???

Let's use a better analogy. Suppose you are driving down a road a see a hitch hiker who really looks like he needs a ride. However, there is a 0.1% probability that he will rape and murder you if you give him a ride. Do you give him a ride? After all, most hitch hikers are harmless.

 

[Billo_Really]

I think we've all had a Qu'ran class since 9-11. Not a lot to like there.

And what part of the Qu'ran tells you how to fly a jumbo jet?

And while you're at it, where in the Bible does it say to bomb Fallujah back to the stone age?

 

[JoeMoma]

To me, it seems like a very foolish and silly move and statement that the admin is making with it....

It's like saying, because there is a future murderer who is a Christian living somewhere in your city or your State, that everyone who is a Christian in your city or your State should be locked up... or punished some how because there is a future murderer of the same faith, living near them, somewhere....???

The eo does not use religion as an indicator.

Either way Joe, it still makes no sense...let me take out the religion indicator....it still seems rather fruitless and just silly....

It's like saying, because there is a future murderer living somewhere in your city or State, that everyone in your city or your State should be locked up... or punished some how because there is a future murderer living near you/them, somewhere....???

Let's use a better analogy. Suppose you are driving down a road a see a hitch hiker who really looks like he needs a ride. However, there is a 0.1% probability that he will rape and murder you if you give him a ride. Do you give him a ride? After all, most hitch hikers are harmless.

My analogy is better than yours because the people in the city already have a right to be there. The hitch hiker does not have a right to get a ride from you, just as people in other countries don't have a right to come here.

 

[ricechickie]

To me, it seems like a very foolish and silly move and statement that the admin is making with it....

It's like saying, because there is a future murderer who is a Christian living somewhere in your city or your State, that everyone who is a Christian in your city or your State should be locked up... or punished some how because there is a future murderer of the same faith, living near them, somewhere....???

The eo does not use religion as an indicator.

Either way Joe, it still makes no sense...let me take out the religion indicator....it still seems rather fruitless and just silly....

It's like saying, because there is a future murderer living somewhere in your city or State, that everyone in your city or your State should be locked up... or punished some how because there is a future murderer living near you/them, somewhere....???

Let's use a better analogy. Suppose you are driving down a road a see a hitch hiker who really looks like he needs a ride. However, there is a 0.1% probability that he will rape and murder you if you give him a ride. Do you give him a ride? After all, most hitch hikers are harmless.

That only works if you already have a serial killer in your car, you just don't know which if your three passengers it is.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I've noticed where the disconnect is with conservatives and progressives on trumps statements about banning Muslims. The issue is the context.

Conservatives see Trumps statements on banning Muslim in the context he made them. Trump saw the immigration issue as a national security issue. We need to keep Jihadists from entering the country to protect ourselves. His first instinct was to ban Muslims to keep jihadists out and was foolish enough to say it because of his political inexperience. He was quickly told he couldn't do that and revised his position. Why?

Because his intent was never banning Muslims. His intent was national security. Banning Muslims was his mean to those ends until he realized he couldn't do that. Then he focused on more tailored approach.

Progressives on the other hand think his intention is to ban Muslims. Presumably because he is a hatefilled islamophobe who wants to oppress minorities or some nonsense like that. They are completely losing the obvious national security issue with jihadists.

To conservatives his foolish statements were a means to an end: national security. Why? Because that's the context the statements were made. To progressives his statements were the ends and he is going to implement them by any means.

But trump never cared about banning Muslims in and of itself. Here are five reasons at prove that:

1) the context he made his statements were always wit national security in mind.

2) his executive order does not attempt to ban Muslims or any other group based on religion. it does not even attempt to apply to all muslims

3) it applies to all people in the affected countries regardless to religious iviewpoints

4) removing Iraq from the list when they complied with what the administration requested shows they never cared about banning Muslims.

5) the order has always been temporary, which makes no sense if the purpose was secretly to ban Muslims.

Then again he doesn't want to stop Saudis, even though more Saudis have killed people in the US than any other nationals from other Muslim countries.

 

[yiostheoy]

I've noticed where the disconnect is with conservatives and progressives on trumps statements about banning Muslims. The issue is the context.

Conservatives see Trumps statements on banning Muslim in the context he made them. Trump saw the immigration issue as a national security issue. We need to keep Jihadists from entering the country to protect ourselves. His first instinct was to ban Muslims to keep jihadists out and was foolish enough to say it because of his political inexperience. He was quickly told he couldn't do that and revised his position. Why?

Because his intent was never banning Muslims. His intent was national security. Banning Muslims was his mean to those ends until he realized he couldn't do that. Then he focused on more tailored approach.

Progressives on the other hand think his intention is to ban Muslims. Presumably because he is a hatefilled islamophobe who wants to oppress minorities or some nonsense like that. They are completely losing the obvious national security issue with jihadists.

To conservatives his foolish statements were a means to an end: national security. Why? Because that's the context the statements were made. To progressives his statements were the ends and he is going to implement them by any means.

But trump never cared about banning Muslims in and of itself. Here are five reasons at prove that:

1) the context he made his statements were always wit national security in mind.

2) his executive order does not attempt to ban Muslims or any other group based on religion. it does not even attempt to apply to all muslims

3) it applies to all people in the affected countries regardless to religious iviewpoints

4) removing Iraq from the list when they complied with what the administration requested shows they never cared about banning Muslims.

5) the order has always been temporary, which makes no sense if the purpose was secretly to ban Muslims.

Had nothing to do with "national security" either.

It was all about pleasing his blue collar voters.

 

[task0778]

To me, it seems like a very foolish and silly move and statement that the admin is making with it....

It's like saying, because there is a future murderer who is a Christian living somewhere in your city or your State, that everyone who is a Christian in your city or your State should be locked up... or punished some how because there is a future murderer of the same faith, living near them, somewhere....???

The eo does not use religion as an indicator.

Either way Joe, it still makes no sense...let me take out the religion indicator....it still seems rather fruitless and just silly....

It's like saying, because there is a future murderer living somewhere in your city or State, that everyone in your city or your State should be locked up... or punished some how because there is a future murderer living near you/them, somewhere....???

Let's use a better analogy. Suppose you are driving down a road a see a hitch hiker who really looks like he needs a ride. However, there is a 0.1% probability that he will rape and murder you if you give him a ride. Do you give him a ride? After all, most hitch hikers are harmless.

What would you tell your daughter?

 

[yiostheoy]

I've noticed where the disconnect is with conservatives and progressives on trumps statements about banning Muslims. The issue is the context.

Conservatives see Trumps statements on banning Muslim in the context he made them. Trump saw the immigration issue as a national security issue. We need to keep Jihadists from entering the country to protect ourselves. His first instinct was to ban Muslims to keep jihadists out and was foolish enough to say it because of his political inexperience. He was quickly told he couldn't do that and revised his position. Why?

Because his intent was never banning Muslims. His intent was national security. Banning Muslims was his mean to those ends until he realized he couldn't do that. Then he focused on more tailored approach.

Progressives on the other hand think his intention is to ban Muslims. Presumably because he is a hatefilled islamophobe who wants to oppress minorities or some nonsense like that. They are completely losing the obvious national security issue with jihadists.

To conservatives his foolish statements were a means to an end: national security. Why? Because that's the context the statements were made. To progressives his statements were the ends and he is going to implement them by any means.

But trump never cared about banning Muslims in and of itself. Here are five reasons at prove that:

1) the context he made his statements were always wit national security in mind.

2) his executive order does not attempt to ban Muslims or any other group based on religion. it does not even attempt to apply to all muslims

3) it applies to all people in the affected countries regardless to religious iviewpoints

4) removing Iraq from the list when they complied with what the administration requested shows they never cared about banning Muslims.

5) the order has always been temporary, which makes no sense if the purpose was secretly to ban Muslims.

Then again he doesn't want to stop Saudis, even though more Saudis have killed people in the US than any other nationals from other Muslim countries.

That's also how you can tell it has nothing to do with national security.

It was/is all about pleasing his blue collar voters.

Like Nixon once famously said, "throw them a French fry ... ."

 

[JoeMoma]

To me, it seems like a very foolish and silly move and statement that the admin is making with it....

It's like saying, because there is a future murderer who is a Christian living somewhere in your city or your State, that everyone who is a Christian in your city or your State should be locked up... or punished some how because there is a future murderer of the same faith, living near them, somewhere....???

The eo does not use religion as an indicator.

Either way Joe, it still makes no sense...let me take out the religion indicator....it still seems rather fruitless and just silly....

It's like saying, because there is a future murderer living somewhere in your city or State, that everyone in your city or your State should be locked up... or punished some how because there is a future murderer living near you/them, somewhere....???

Let's use a better analogy. Suppose you are driving down a road a see a hitch hiker who really looks like he needs a ride. However, there is a 0.1% probability that he will rape and murder you if you give him a ride. Do you give him a ride? After all, most hitch hikers are harmless.

That only works if you already have a serial killer in your car, you just don't know which if your three passengers it is.

???? What are you talking about Willis. What three passengers?

 

[JoeMoma]

To me, it seems like a very foolish and silly move and statement that the admin is making with it....

It's like saying, because there is a future murderer who is a Christian living somewhere in your city or your State, that everyone who is a Christian in your city or your State should be locked up... or punished some how because there is a future murderer of the same faith, living near them, somewhere....???

The eo does not use religion as an indicator.

Either way Joe, it still makes no sense...let me take out the religion indicator....it still seems rather fruitless and just silly....

It's like saying, because there is a future murderer living somewhere in your city or State, that everyone in your city or your State should be locked up... or punished some how because there is a future murderer living near you/them, somewhere....???

Let's use a better analogy. Suppose you are driving down a road a see a hitch hiker who really looks like he needs a ride. However, there is a 0.1% probability that he will rape and murder you if you give him a ride. Do you give him a ride? After all, most hitch hikers are harmless.

What would you tell your daughter?

Don't pick up hitchikers.

 

[yiostheoy]

To me, it seems like a very foolish and silly move and statement that the admin is making with it....

It's like saying, because there is a future murderer who is a Christian living somewhere in your city or your State, that everyone who is a Christian in your city or your State should be locked up... or punished some how because there is a future murderer of the same faith, living near them, somewhere....???

The eo does not use religion as an indicator.

Either way Joe, it still makes no sense...let me take out the religion indicator....it still seems rather fruitless and just silly....

It's like saying, because there is a future murderer living somewhere in your city or State, that everyone in your city or your State should be locked up... or punished some how because there is a future murderer living near you/them, somewhere....???

Let's use a better analogy. Suppose you are driving down a road a see a hitch hiker who really looks like he needs a ride. However, there is a 0.1% probability that he will rape and murder you if you give him a ride. Do you give him a ride? After all, most hitch hikers are harmless.

So in other words you are saying the particularly country matters ?

BTW I don't ever pick up male hitch hikers. Only female ones.

 

[ricechickie]

To me, it seems like a very foolish and silly move and statement that the admin is making with it....

It's like saying, because there is a future murderer who is a Christian living somewhere in your city or your State, that everyone who is a Christian in your city or your State should be locked up... or punished some how because there is a future murderer of the same faith, living near them, somewhere....???

The eo does not use religion as an indicator.

Either way Joe, it still makes no sense...let me take out the religion indicator....it still seems rather fruitless and just silly....

It's like saying, because there is a future murderer living somewhere in your city or State, that everyone in your city or your State should be locked up... or punished some how because there is a future murderer living near you/them, somewhere....???

Let's use a better analogy. Suppose you are driving down a road a see a hitch hiker who really looks like he needs a ride. However, there is a 0.1% probability that he will rape and murder you if you give him a ride. Do you give him a ride? After all, most hitch hikers are harmless.

That only works if you already have a serial killer in your car, you just don't know which if your three passengers it is.

???? What are you talking about Willis. What three passengers?

I'm making your analogy more accurate. The car is the country, the hitchhiker is a refugee......we need passengers in the car that we already can't quite trust (US citizens) to make it true to life.

 

[Timmy]

Stuff thats said during campaigns does not count Timmy. If it did Hillary would have been disqualified by all the crap Obama said about her in 2008. He said shes COMPLETELY out of touch with Americans and on the take.
Now suddenly in 2016, hes got good things to say about her? and he made this woman Secretary of State?
You got to be kidding me, In 2008 she was unqualified to run a hot dog stand. So here is how much, things taken out of context during presidential debates really count.



For some reason people say thing during campaigns, but it is important to look at the context. You are being fucking disingenous. You damn well know Trump is trying to protect the American people from terrorists who might come in among refugees. Yet you guys get a sad sack excuse of a Judge to obstruct an American President doing his job.

It only takes one ISIS terrorist to get through as a refugee (out of the thousands being let in) to use a Mack Truck to mow down a high school band marching in a local Christmas parade.

It only takes one native-born American to do that, too.

Maybe we shouldn't add to that number with immigrants?

Stuff thats said during campaigns does not count Timmy. If it did Hillary would have been disqualified by all the crap Obama said about her in 2008. He said shes COMPLETELY out of touch with Americans and on the take.
Now suddenly in 2016, hes got good things to say about her? and he made this woman Secretary of State?
You got to be kidding me, In 2008 she was unqualified to run a hot dog stand. So here is how much, things taken out of context during presidential debates really count.



For some reason people say thing during campaigns, but it is important to look at the context. You are being fucking disingenous. You damn well know Trump is trying to protect the American people from terrorists who might come in among refugees. Yet you guys get a sad sack excuse of a Judge to obstruct an American President doing his job.

It only takes one ISIS terrorist to get through as a refugee (out of the thousands being let in) to use a Mack Truck to mow down a high school band marching in a local Christmas parade.

It only takes one native-born American to do that, too.

So we shouldn't try to prevent the ISIS terrorist from doing that because it's possible for a native born American to do it also?

Just pointing out the hypocrisy. ISIS isn't our only danger in the U.S., and it's time to stop pretending that foreign terrorists are killing us in greater numbers than anyone else.

Say you're camping, and a mosquito and a bear both get into the tent. You're going to kill the mosquito first?

Are you seriously telling us the muslims, the fucking people blowing shit up, killing people with axes, and attacking everything in the west are the fucking Mosquito's and the Christians are the bears?

Are you seriously this fucking dumb?

Say you're at the mall with your wife and kid and there are 2,000 Christians in there shopping. And there are two or three muslims. What are the odds you need to worry about the Christians being the ones that will set off a bomb or go on a shooting spree?

We have shooting sprees all the time. They ain't all muslims !

 

[Care4all]

To me, it seems like a very foolish and silly move and statement that the admin is making with it....

It's like saying, because there is a future murderer who is a Christian living somewhere in your city or your State, that everyone who is a Christian in your city or your State should be locked up... or punished some how because there is a future murderer of the same faith, living near them, somewhere....???

The eo does not use religion as an indicator.

Either way Joe, it still makes no sense...let me take out the religion indicator....it still seems rather fruitless and just silly....

It's like saying, because there is a future murderer living somewhere in your city or State, that everyone in your city or your State should be locked up... or punished some how because there is a future murderer living near you/them, somewhere....???

Let's use a better analogy. Suppose you are driving down a road a see a hitch hiker who really looks like he needs a ride. However, there is a 0.1% probability that he will rape and murder you if you give him a ride. Do you give him a ride? After all, most hitch hikers are harmless.

if it were a woman hitch hiker, in the pouring rain, next to her broken down car, with one child in her arms, and another little child sopping wet holding her skirt... as she waved her hand and put her thumb up, hoping and praying for help from a stranger... a stranger that wouldn't kill her or her kids, then YES, I would stop and help her, and take that chance!

In simpler words, even though I know that a hitch hiker could end up killing me, not all hitch hikers would weigh as an equal threat in my brain...

 

[Seawytch]

I've noticed where the disconnect is with conservatives and progressives on trumps statements about banning Muslims. The issue is the context.

Conservatives see Trumps statements on banning Muslim in the context he made them. Trump saw the immigration issue as a national security issue. We need to keep Jihadists from entering the country to protect ourselves. His first instinct was to ban Muslims to keep jihadists out and was foolish enough to say it because of his political inexperience. He was quickly told he couldn't do that and revised his position. Why?

Because his intent was never banning Muslims. His intent was national security. Banning Muslims was his mean to those ends until he realized he couldn't do that. Then he focused on more tailored approach.

Progressives on the other hand think his intention is to ban Muslims. Presumably because he is a hatefilled islamophobe who wants to oppress minorities or some nonsense like that. They are completely losing the obvious national security issue with jihadists.

To conservatives his foolish statements were a means to an end: national security. Why? Because that's the context the statements were made. To progressives his statements were the ends and he is going to implement them by any means.

But trump never cared about banning Muslims in and of itself. Here are five reasons at prove that:

1) the context he made his statements were always wit national security in mind.

2) his executive order does not attempt to ban Muslims or any other group based on religion. it does not even attempt to apply to all muslims

3) it applies to all people in the affected countries regardless to religious iviewpoints

4) removing Iraq from the list when they complied with what the administration requested shows they never cared about banning Muslims.

5) the order has always been temporary, which makes no sense if the purpose was secretly to ban Muslims.

I noticed you failed to post what he actually said .

He posted what he actually did.

How about what he actually said !

That list is a pile of bullshit . Like Iraq was suddenly fixed ! Lol. The pentagon got Trumps ear and told him to drop Iraq because it fucked upmthe war on isis .

Stuff thats said during campaigns does not count Timmy. If it did Hillary would have been disqualified by all the crap Obama said about her in 2008. He said shes COMPLETELY out of touch with Americans and on the take.
Now suddenly in 2016, hes got good things to say about her? and he made this woman Secretary of State?
You got to be kidding me, In 2008 she was unqualified to run a hot dog stand. So here is how much, things taken out of context during presidential debates really count.



For some reason people say thing during campaigns, but it is important to look at the context. You are being fucking disingenous. You damn well know Trump is trying to protect the American people from terrorists who might come in among refugees. Yet you guys get a sad sack excuse of a Judge to obstruct an American President doing his job.

"Simply because a decisionmaker made the statements during a campaign does not wipe them from the 'reasonable memory' of a 'reasonable observer,'" the judge wrote, pointing to a federal appeals court decision that considered "billboards and campaign commercials" for Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore in concluding that he was motivated by religion when he had a Ten Commandments display installed at a state courthouse.

Judges use Trump’s own words in ruling against revised travel ban

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

I want a muslim ban, and a mexican ban, a syrian ban.

We need to take about 20 years off from bringing people here. Limit the immigrants to specialized fields and only the top of their professions. No ditch diggers, no fucking drive thru operators. And nobody that get's any government funding or assistance.

Immigration ban in general.

Our sign should read, NO VACANCY

 

[g5000]

I've noticed where the disconnect is with conservatives and progressives on trumps statements about banning Muslims. The issue is the context.

Conservatives see Trumps statements on banning Muslim in the context he made them. Trump saw the immigration issue as a national security issue. We need to keep Jihadists from entering the country to protect ourselves. His first instinct was to ban Muslims to keep jihadists out and was foolish enough to say it because of his political inexperience. He was quickly told he couldn't do that and revised his position. Why?

Because his intent was never banning Muslims. His intent was national security. Banning Muslims was his mean to those ends until he realized he couldn't do that. Then he focused on more tailored approach.

Progressives on the other hand think his intention is to ban Muslims. Presumably because he is a hatefilled islamophobe who wants to oppress minorities or some nonsense like that. They are completely losing the obvious national security issue with jihadists.

To conservatives his foolish statements were a means to an end: national security. Why? Because that's the context the statements were made. To progressives his statements were the ends and he is going to implement them by any means.

But trump never cared about banning Muslims in and of itself. Here are five reasons at prove that:

1) the context he made his statements were always wit national security in mind.

2) his executive order does not attempt to ban Muslims or any other group based on religion. it does not even attempt to apply to all muslims

3) it applies to all people in the affected countries regardless to religious iviewpoints

4) removing Iraq from the list when they complied with what the administration requested shows they never cared about banning Muslims.

5) the order has always been temporary, which makes no sense if the purpose was secretly to ban Muslims.

Utter bullshit. Rudy Giuliani admitted on Fox News that Trump said he wanted a "Muslim ban" and needed Giuliani's advice on how to make the proper legal framework for one.

Also, within the text of the EO are exemptions for Christians. So this was clearly targeted at Muslims and Muslims only.

And when you ask Trump's Chumps how Dear Leader is doing, they invariably say he is keeping every promise he made. Well, one of those promises was a Muslim ban.

The pseudocon dipshits aren't fooling anyone, and neither is Trump. The EO is a Muslim ban.

But, like always, the pseudocons are too fucking gutless to admit it.