Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 02-07-2017, 05:56 AM
 
1,285 posts, read 588,475 times
Reputation: 762

Advertisements

Like i said earlier, Trump's own public statements are now going to be used against him in court.

Quote:
The states of Washington and Minnesota, which sued to block it [the travel ban], are citing Trump’s inflammatory rhetoric as evidence that the government’s claims — it’s not a ban and not aimed at Muslims — are shams.

In court papers, Washington and Minnesota’s attorneys general have pulled out quotes from speeches, news conferences and interviews as evidence that an executive order the administration argues is neutral was really motivated by animus toward Muslims and a “desire to harm a particular group.”

His words, the two states say in their brief, show “that the President acted in bad faith in an effort to target Muslims.” The courts, they say, “have both the right and duty to examine” Trump’s “true motives.”

The states offer a multitude of exhibits, starting with a December 2015 release from the Trump campaign calling for a “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on.”

They cite his August speech advocating screening out people “who believe that Sharia law should supplant American law.”

Another exhibit: His Jan. 27 interview with the Christian Broadcasting Network in which he said he wanted to give priority to Christians in Syria.

They even hauled out Rudolph W. Giuliani’s comment on Fox News that Trump wanted a “Muslim ban” and requested he assemble a commission to show him “the right way to do it legally.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.fce66aa5496d
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-07-2017, 06:06 AM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
88,789 posts, read 44,594,609 times
Reputation: 13623
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodnight View Post
Um yes most refugees are vetted for 2-3 years, this was an error in the vetting and they reexamined those people, there was no need to shut down the system.
There's an ADMITTED vetting lapse. Trump did the correct and 100% legal and Constitutional thing in trying to protect Americans from vetting inadequacies while placing a temporary delay on those being allowed to enter the US.

I've already cited both Federal Law and SCOTUS ruling.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-07-2017, 06:10 AM
 
Location: Long Island
57,060 posts, read 26,024,198 times
Reputation: 15527
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
There's an ADMITTED vetting lapse. Trump did the correct and 100% legal and Constitutional thing in trying to protect Americans from vetting inadequacies while placing a temporary delay on those being allowed to enter the US.

I've already cited both Federal Law and SCOTUS rulings.
He's not protecting anyone with his current actions, if you believe the intelligence community he is in fact making us less safe by turning our allies against us in the ME, I don't think they quite view this the same way as Trump "making us safer".


I will wait for the Appeals court ruling on constitutionality which seems to be moving quite rapidly.

Last edited by Goodnight; 02-07-2017 at 06:28 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-07-2017, 06:18 AM
 
Location: City Data Land
17,156 posts, read 12,912,897 times
Reputation: 33164
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
There's an ADMITTED vetting lapse. Trump did the correct and 100% legal and Constitutional thing in trying to protect Americans from vetting inadequacies while placing a temporary delay on those being allowed to enter the US.

I've already cited both Federal Law and SCOTUS ruling.
No. You don't shoot first and ask questions later, especially when you're the President and your actions have long lasting consequences for millions and sometimes even billions of people. I'll pretend I agree with your theory that there was a vetting lapse, which I don't. If Trump wanted to restrict immigration, the CORRECT thing for him to do would be to draft a revised immigration strategy with the help of advisors who know something about immigration.

He should have sent such a bill through Congress first because if affects so many thousands of people and gotten their approval, but even if he decided not to do that and went the Executive Order route instead, he should have at least gone through the Legal Department and talked to Immigration and whatever other departments before signing it in yet another highly publicized photo op. Instead, his EO cast too wide a berth and is facing a multitude of legal challenges just because he acted before thinking, which is a nasty quality our hotheaded President has.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-07-2017, 06:27 AM
 
Location: Long Island
57,060 posts, read 26,024,198 times
Reputation: 15527
This is link if you want to listen to the oral arguments in the 9th Circuit Court, 3PM PST, 6 PM EST. There are 3 judges on the panel, appointed by Carter, Obama and GW Bush.




Watch recording for 17-35105 State of Washington v. Trump 3:00 PM 2/7, No.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-07-2017, 07:48 AM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
88,789 posts, read 44,594,609 times
Reputation: 13623
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodnight View Post
He's not protecting anyone with his current actions
Based on what?

It's a worldwide problem. Why shouldn't POTUS do what he's legally allowed to do to protect Americans?

Quote:
Of the 78 attacks, 11 occurred in the United States.

Other countries on the list: Afghanistan, Algeria, Australia, Bangladesh, Belgium, Bosnia, Britain, Canada, Chad, Denmark, Egypt, France, Germany, Indonesia, Jordan, Kuwait, Libya, the Philippines, Saudi Arabia, Sweden, Tunisia, Turkey, and the United Arab Emirates.
White House offers list of terrorist attacks the press took lightly - POLITICO

How many terrorist acts are acceptable to you to look the other way, thereby risking others' lives?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-07-2017, 07:48 AM
 
19,709 posts, read 10,054,697 times
Reputation: 13064
The First Lady should be deported. She was illegal when she married The-Rump. Her visa had expired.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-07-2017, 07:51 AM
 
Location: United States
12,390 posts, read 7,075,409 times
Reputation: 6134
Quote:
Originally Posted by jman0war View Post
Like i said earlier, Trump's own public statements are now going to be used against him in court.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.fce66aa5496d
It doesn't matter what Trump said, the EO applies to all equally, and therefore is legal.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-07-2017, 08:06 AM
 
13,899 posts, read 6,424,207 times
Reputation: 6960
Did anyone even hear what this judge's excuse was? He said it will harm the education system and economy of Washington state if these people aren't allowed to come here. This man is delusional as all hell.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-07-2017, 08:16 AM
 
Location: NE Ohio
30,421 posts, read 20,258,541 times
Reputation: 8958
Quote:
Originally Posted by Howest2008 View Post
Yes Democrats and Republicans take turns being the obstructionist party.
Laugable, since for the last eight years the Democrats held all the power. The Republicans had no power to obstruct anything. With Harry Reid in the Senate, and Obama as POTUS, nothing Republicans could do. Not until 2015 did Republicans have control of the Senate as well as the House. But with Obama in the WH, they could not move their agenda forward.

But at least for now, Democrats are obstructing (delaying) the confirmation process. They have limited ability, but they are exercising that to the max.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:13 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top