Trump says his travel ban needed to ensure U.S. religious freedom

[craigt3365]

6 minutes ago, Ulysses G. said:

Nice try, but no cigar. The claim is that TRUMP said his executive order was a Muslim ban to church leaders and he DIDN'T. He has said a lot of things in the past, but this order was crafted to be legal and the Supreme Court will uphold it. The executive order is not a Muslim ban and he never told any church leaders any such thing. What he might have said to Rudy Giuliani is second hand information and not verifiable. 

 

Agreed the current ban is not for all Muslims.  That's pretty easy to discern.  But if it was up to him and Bannon, it would be.  Luckily, there would be too much backlash.  The EO is not a Muslim ban.  But he DID say he wanted one a few years ago.  Shows the true nature of the man.  Racist.

[Andaman Al]

26 minutes ago, Ulysses G. said:

 He has said a lot of things in the past, but this order was crafted to be legal and the Supreme Court will uphold it.

This order was not 'crafted' by any stretch of the imagination, it was thrown together with the absolute minimum of thought and consultation. It is a pretty bad indictment when you are saying that "The Supreme Court will uphold it", and relying on that, what a joke. If it was 'crafted' it would have never been challenged in the courts at all, and certainly never upheld. And stand by for a shock as I am not sure that the Supreme Court can uphold it as it is simply against the US Constitution, and everything that Trump has said in front of the media and everything members of his administration have said that all point to this being a 'Muslim ban' and an ill-considered order that did not follow any normal protocol in its construction will be used by the Supreme Court in the weighing up of the constitutional robustness of this order. It will fail, and the likes of Paul Ryan can't wait.

Edited February 5, 2017 by Andaman Al

[Ulysses G.]

14 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

Agreed the current ban is not for all Muslims.  That's pretty easy to discern.  But if it was up to him and Bannon, it would be.  Luckily, there would be too much backlash.  The EO is not a Muslim ban.  But he DID say he wanted one a few years ago.

You may be correct about him preferring a ban on Muslims, but it is hard to be sure. He has had a lot of time to reconsider things that he said in the past and learn more about the issue. He is privy to a lot of information that he did not have a few years ago. I do not think he is a racist or anti-Semite or any of that stuff that he is accused of by the left. IMO, he is trying to protect the American people and I give him credit for calling Islamic Terrorism a major threat. It was downplayed by the presidency for 8 long years.

Edited February 5, 2017 by Ulysses G.

[craigt3365]

I sure hope Trump doesn't do something stupid like this again.  Looks like this ban may get reversed.

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/02/04/politics/donald-trump-travel-ban/index.html

 

Quote

 

Trump just got checked and balanced

But with the judge's ruling on Friday evening, even Trump's own appointees will be forced to follow the court's order. Less than three hours after the decision was handed down, Customs and Border Protection officials told representatives from major air carriers they could allow previously banned passengers to board flights bound for the US.

 

The Department of Homeland Security, headed by Trump pick John Kelly, said it is suspending implementation of the order, even as it insisted the ban was "lawful and appropriate."

 

"We have reversed the provisional revocation of visas under Executive Order 13769," an agency official said. "Those individuals with visas that were not physically cancelled may now travel if the visa is otherwise valid."

 

Gergen's comment is spot on.  Amazing Trump supporters don't see this.

Quote

"I cannot remember a president who has had so much chaos surrounding his presidency in the first 100 days," said David Gergen, a White House adviser to four presidents and now CNN senior political analyst. "I understand they were trying to address a serious concern they had. They brought this on themselves the way they drafted this. They didn't have the lawyers. They need to vet this in a way to pass constitutional muster."

 

As my underlined and highlighted sentence shows, it's not's the medias fault for the bad coverage regarding Trump.  It's all his fault.  No one else to blame.

[craigt3365]

Gotta love this comment.  It only gets worse for Trump and his team.  Hopefully, they'll learn they can't do anything they want.  They got a big smack down on this one.

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/02/04/opinions/facts-matter-terror-threat-aslan/index.html
 

Quote

 

Thus far, the only mention of the tragedy by the White House has been by Trump's Press Secretary, Sean Spicer, who, in a mind-boggling display of disinformation, called it "a terrible reminder of why we must remain vigilant and why the President is taking steps to be proactive instead of reactive when it comes to our nation's safety and security."

 

Spicer's statement left the press corps baffled. He seemed to be suggesting that a far-right, ultra-nationalist, white supremacist, radicalized by social media into murdering Muslims, somehow proved Trump's position on the need to focus on the threat of Islamic terrorism.

 

Trump needs a new press secretary.  Desperately.

[Traveler19491]

25 minutes ago, Ulysses G. said:

Nice try, but no cigar. The claim is that TRUMP said his executive order was a Muslim ban to church leaders and he DIDN'T. He has said a lot of things in the past, but this order was crafted to be legal and the Supreme Court will uphold it. The executive order is not a Muslim ban and he never told any church leaders any such thing. What he might have said to Rudy Giuliani is second hand information and not verifiable. 

 

 

Ulysses, you really should give Sean Spicer a call and see if they need any help in the Trump "communications" department. You're a natural. You are a master at the art of picking nits. The fact that a commenter used an "over-the-top" statement of hyperbole, or created some of his/her own "alternative facts", does nothing to negate the fact that Trump has, on numerous occasions in numerous venues, verified by his closest confidantes and recordings of his own words, stated that he would initiate a ban on all Muslims. That it occurred before the EO was issued is exactly the issue. The date when he said it is irrelevant...he said it, and now he has followed through on the threat. But I understand that deflection on this issue is all you have left. This EO is unconstitutional due to its discriminatory nature and its clear violation of the religious neutrality intent of the First Amendment.

[Ulysses G.]

The executive order will not be reversed.

 

Trump's immigration ban executive order is clumsy, but perfectly legal

 

Nevertheless, it is apparent that the EO will inconvenience many people who are coming here for legitimate purposes, and that is unfortunate.

On the other hand, it also is apparent that President Trump did not exceed his statutory authority over alien admissions with the directives in the EO, and that he issued it to protect the United States and its citizens from foreign nationals who intend to commit terrorist attacks in the United States.

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/immigration/316871-trumps-immigration-ban-is-clumsy-but-perfectly-legal

[Srikcir]

12 minutes ago, Ulysses G. said:

I give him credit for calling Islamic Terrorism a major threat. It was downplayed by the presidency for 8 long years.

I give Trump credit for now following Obama who was using the term "Islamic Radical Extremists" to distance blame on Muslims as a whole for which Trump villified Obama as being politically correct at the cost of national security. Now Trump is taking refuge (Trump as a political refugee?) in very similar caveoted language. Mybe credit should be given to Obama too?

[Traveler19491]

14 minutes ago, Ulysses G. said:

IMO, he is trying to protect the American people and I give him credit for calling Islamic Terrorism a major threat. It was downplayed by the presidency for 8 long years.

 

Actually, if one does some actual research, Obama never "downplayed" terrorism in any way. He correctly noted that by calling it "Islamic" terrorism it lumps all Muslims into the same camp. I note that no one calls the KKK or Richard Spencer, Stephen Bannon, and the rest of the "alt right" ilk "Christian terrorists", for the simple reason that the vast, vast majority of Christians aren't terrorists. Neither are the vast, vast majority of the followers of Islam "Islamic terrorists". By calling them such, those who utilize that term provide ISIS and every other extremist group with a useful recruiting tool, enabling them to point to "how the infidels view us". Obama was a far more intelligent and thoughtful individual than his detractors on the right were ever willing to give him credit for.

[Ulysses G.]

4 minutes ago, Traveler19491 said:

Ulysses, you really should give Sean Spicer a call and see if they need any help in the Trump "communications" department.

I addressed specific disinformation that was posted on the forum and corrected it. I did not claim to do otherwise. Nice attempt at a Red Herring fallacy - although very obvious.

[craigt3365]

20 minutes ago, Ulysses G. said:

The executive order will not be reversed.

 

Trump's immigration ban executive order is clumsy, but perfectly legal

 

Nevertheless, it is apparent that the EO will inconvenience many people who are coming here for legitimate purposes, and that is unfortunate.

On the other hand, it also is apparent that President Trump did not exceed his statutory authority over alien admissions with the directives in the EO, and that he issued it to protect the United States and its citizens from foreign nationals who intend to commit terrorist attacks in the United States.

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/immigration/316871-trumps-immigration-ban-is-clumsy-but-perfectly-legal

That was from before the Seattle judge's ruling.  As you've told others before, pick more up to date articles.  Like the one I posted from today.  With this comment from the DHS:

Quote

"We have reversed the provisional revocation of visas under Executive Order 13769," an agency official said. "Those individuals with visas that were not physically cancelled may now travel if the visa is otherwise valid."

Trump get's shot down.

[Ulysses G.]

15 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

That was from before the Seattle judge's ruling.  As you've told others before, pick more up to date articles.  Like the one I posted from today.  With this comment from the DHS:

Trump get's shot down.

 Don't be silly. Nothing has changed about his executive order, other than it has been challenged and that is to be expected. That will all change as soon as the DOJ can respond when the courts open after the weekend.

 

On Trial: Why Trump’s Immigration Ban Will Win Over Seattle Judge’s Nationwide Order

http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/on-trial-why-trumps-immigration-ban-will-win-over-seattle-judges-nationwide-stay/

Edited February 5, 2017 by Ulysses G.

[Traveler19491]

24 minutes ago, Ulysses G. said:

I addressed specific disinformation that was posted on the forum and corrected it. I did not claim to do otherwise. Nice attempt at a Red Herring fallacy - although very obvious.

 

I agree with you 100% that disinformation is abhorrent and should be pointed out and corrected, regardless the medium or venue. Perhaps you can help me appreciate the sincerity of your effort by directing my attention to your same level of diligence in calling out on this forum the disinformation repeatedly doled out by the current administration.

[Traveler19491]

1 minute ago, Ulysses G. said:

 Don't be silly. Nothing has changed about his executive order, other than it has been challenged and that is to be expected. That will all change as soon as the DOJ can respond when the courts open after the weekend.

 

No more silly than your quoting of a conservative opinion piece from The Hill and citing it as justification for your belief that the EO will not be reversed.

 

[craigt3365]

1 minute ago, Ulysses G. said:

 Don't be silly. Nothing has changed about his executive order, other than it has been challenged and that is to be expected. That will all change as soon as the DOJ can respond when the courts open after the weekend.

It just got revoked by the DHS!  That's not a challenge.  That's a cancellation.  The DOJ can go after this, but for now, Trump got a smack down. LOL

[USNret]

On 2/2/2017 at 3:37 PM, alanrchase said:

 

So would that allow a person of one religion to persecute people of a different religion?

Sent from my SM-A500F using Thaivisa Connect mobile app
 

 

 

Only if you are of the "right" religion.

[Ulysses G.]

11 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

It just got revoked by the DHS!  That's not a challenge.  That's a cancellation.  The DOJ can go after this, but for now, Trump got a smack down.

He gets lots of smack downs, but the executive order will prevail. That is all that counts.

 

“At the earliest time possible, the Department of Justice intends to file an emergency stay of this order and defend the President’s Executive Order, which is lawful and appropriate".

Edited February 5, 2017 by Ulysses G.

[craigt3365]

4 minutes ago, Ulysses G. said:

He gets lots of smack downs, but the executive order will prevail. That is all that counts.

 

“At the earliest time possible, the Department of Justice intends to file an emergency stay of this order and defend the President’s Executive Order, which is lawful and appropriate".

And what counts now is it's been stopped.  Trump got a smack down.  It's been over ruled!

[Ulysses G.]

Only temporarily. No big deal in the long run. 

Edited February 5, 2017 by Ulysses G.

[Traveler19491]

6 minutes ago, Ulysses G. said:

He gets lots of smack downs, but the executive order will prevail. That is all that counts.

 

“At the earliest time possible, the Department of Justice intends to file an emergency stay of this order and defend the President’s Executive Order, which is lawful and appropriate".

 

The White House stating that the President's EO "is lawful and appropriate". There's a shocker. The fact is that a conservative judge appointed by Dubya has found the order to possibly be UNlawful and INappropriate. The plaintiff used a novel approach, insisting that the EO was adversely affecting their economic well-being. Yes, the judge's ruling will be appealed. Whether or not it stands remains to be seen. Using opinion in an attempt to declare a certainty does not make it so.

[craigt3365]

13 minutes ago, Ulysses G. said:

Only temporarily. No big deal in the long run. 

And how do you know it's temporary?  You have a crystal ball? LOL

[Ulysses G.]

Because it is a temporary restraining order. 

 

The U.S. Justice Department has filed a formal notice of appeal.

 

Feb. 4, 2017, 4:41 p.m.

Trump administration files formal notice of appeal on court order suspending immigration ban

 

http://www.latimes.com/politics/washington/la-na-essential-washington-updates-trump-administration-files-formal-1486254439-htmlstory.html

[craigt3365]

1 minute ago, Ulysses G. said:

Because it is a temporary restraining order. 

 

The U.S. Justice Department has filed a formal notice of appeal.

 

Feb. 4, 2017, 4:41 p.m.

Trump administration files formal notice of appeal on court order suspending immigration ban

 

http://www.latimes.com/politics/washington/la-na-essential-washington-updates-trump-administration-files-formal-1486254439-htmlstory.html

Luckily, this isn't a judicial officer Trump can fire.  There are more important things to do.  He's totally wasting government resources.  I thought you were against that??? LOL

[Ulysses G.]

Defending an executive order is far from a waste of resources, especially as he will prevail in the end. The order is legal and bucking it is the real waste.

[piersbeckett]

The author or at least major contributor of the first amendment, James Madison (a 'founding father' & the 4th.Potus) is reported to have said, which seems rich coming from a person himself apparently ignorant or dismissive of the historic warlike, intolerant, chauvinistic, dogmatic, uncompromising, repressive, political nature of the controllers of the followers of Islam, the very epitome of those leaders who believe in the freedom of the individual, " Knowledge will forever govern ignorance, and people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives. If men were angels, no government would be necessary.  The loss of liberty at home is to be charged to the provisions against danger, real or imagined from abroad."

 

Seemingly in his enthusiasm to help the Baptist preachers denied legitimacy by the established Christian Church, he overplayed his hand in firstly promoting constitutional guarantees for religious freedom in Virginia and then applying this dangerous broader church (pun intended) approach to the constitution and the bill of rights.

 

My view is that democracy cannot be extended to religion because of the political nature of religion which may be and usually is, undemocratic.

 

Madison's error is perhaps understandable considering the context i.e. the times in which he operated and the vast amount of political issues he was dealing with.

[piersbeckett]

2 hours ago, piersbeckett said:

The author or at least major contributor of the first amendment, James Madison (a 'founding father' & the 4th.Potus) is reported to have said, which seems rich coming from a person himself apparently ignorant or dismissive of the historic warlike, intolerant, chauvinistic, dogmatic, uncompromising, repressive, political nature of the controllers of the followers of Islam, the very opposite of those leaders who believe in the freedom of the individual, " Knowledge will forever govern ignorance, and people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives. If men were angels, no government would be necessary.  The loss of liberty at home is to be charged to the provisions against danger, real or imagined from abroad."

 

Seemingly in his enthusiasm to help the Baptist preachers denied legitimacy by the established Christian Church, he overplayed his hand in firstly promoting constitutional guarantees for religious freedom in Virginia and then applying this dangerous broader church (pun intended) approach to the constitution and the bill of rights.

 

My view is that democracy cannot be extended to religion because of the political nature of religion which may be and usually is, undemocratic.

 

Madison's error is perhaps understandable considering the context i.e. the times in which he operated and the vast amount of political issues he was dealing with.

 

[Srikcir]

56 minutes ago, Ulysses G. said:

bucking it is the real waste

Judicial check & balance against Executive and Legislative branches of a democratic government is never a "waste."

 

It's important to understand the judicial process in this case. The judge granted the plaintiffs a Temporary Restraining Order and not a Permanent Injunction.  The TOR is just a pause based essentially on the merit of the plaintiff having legal standing (I'm not an attorney so this is my layman's interpretation) that there is a plausible legal basis to bring the lawsuit to the court - a very low legal bar that the plaintiff met. The legal merits are not an issue! That makes an appeal difficult to challenge as the TOR is not an Injunction for the government to cease and desist. More in the link:

www.cnn.com/2017/02/04/opinions/judge-refugee-ban-raises-questions-cevallos-opinion/index/html