Monday Night Massacre

[Dill]

(02-02-2017, 08:38 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: I'm not sure if the ban is constitutional or not, but come on now... calling it a "Muslim Ban" is getting kind of ridiculous, isn't it? I realize that "Muslim Ban" is more provocative and exciting than "countries that are training or arming terrorists, or are otherwise unstable and hate us ban". Not even mentioning the fact that it bans all people from those countries, regardless of religion (10% of Syrians aren't Muslim). Here's this....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_by_country
1. Indonesia
2. Pakistan
3. India
4. Bangladesh
5. Nigeria

That's the top-5 countries in the world by Muslim population. None of them are on the banned list. On the other hand, those seven countries? They are only 12.2% of the world's Muslim population.

That means 87.8% of the world's Muslims can still enter and leave and enter the US again.

So seriously. Stop propagating the "Muslim Ban" term. It may not be found unconstitutional, and heck, I may not even agree with all those countries being on the list, but it's not a Muslim Ban.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Leonard, I appreciate your point. But let me explain why I think we ought to continue calling Trump’s executive order a Muslim Ban.

First, I grant it is not yet a ban in the original form that Trump intended.  Since first proposing a total ban on Muslims, he has since learned that such a ban would face legal/constitutional challenge and many of his own party would not be down with it. So he charged supporters, including Guilliani, to find a way to change the legal language to effect the ban without triggering Constitutional challenges. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/01/29/trump-asked-for-a-muslim-ban-giuliani-says-and-ordered-a-commission-to-do-it-legally/?utm_term=.0a608cdf03fc. http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/02/why-trumps-immigration-rules-are-unconstitutional-214722 

This is why Yates insisted that we need to look at the context created by statements leading up to the ban, which plainly stated the blanket religious criterion. For an analogy, think of how southern states responded to the 15th Amendment giving African Americans the right to vote. They could no longer use racial criteria to restrict the vote, so they applied their legal ingenuity to “separate but equal” and voting tests which made no mention of race but in effect excluded blacks. A similar process is underway now. If the ban passes current tests, it can be expanded. If it does not, then the language can be tinkered with again.

Second, Trump’s legal advisers shifted the stated criteria from religion to “danger” and “threat.” This is the first step, a testing of the waters. You mentioned that countries with highest Muslim populations, like Indonesia, are not on the list. But have you also noticed that the countries whose citizens have done the most damage in the U.S., like Saudi Arabia, are not on the list? (And how many golf courses does Trump have in Somalia or Iraq?)

Third, Religious tests still inform Trump’s order, since there is an exception for “persecuted religious minorities” from the seven MAJORITY MUSLIM countries. Those will be largely Christian—never mind that hundreds of thousands of Muslims are persecuted too. So it does not ban all people from those countries regardless of religion.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2017/01/29/fact-checking-president-donald-trump-on-false-christian-refugee-stats.html. http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/27/politics/trump-christian-refugees/

Finally,  the ban violates so many of the international norms/laws which the US has supported since 1948 in reaction to the international fascist norms which brought the disaster of WWII upon the world.
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2017/02/international-laws-trump-muslim-ban-breaking-170202135132664.html

This is why I go with the national and global opposition to Trump’s ban. We should not accept Trumpspeak and name the ban for what it really is.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2017/01/trump_s_executive_order_on_immigration_is_a_muslim_ban.html
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/yes-muslim-ban-donald-trumps-9733360

[djam]

(02-02-2017, 07:03 PM)Dill Wrote: You BELIEVE that the Democrat Party would benefit, therefore THERE MUST BE millions of fraudulent voters. That is the whole foundation of your argument. Never mind that just believing doesn't make it so, and that ANY party would benefit from millions of fraudulent votes.

If my argument were simply the mirror of yours, I would be saying that because millions of fraudulent votes would help Republicans, then THERE MUST BE millions of fraudulent votes. But my argument is not the mirror of yours, because my claims require the sort evidence that can be substantiated by independent parties regardless of what anyone believes.

The statistics, which you now seem to grant, show that in some places (not all) Republicans could shave percentages off vote totals to win using voter id laws.

The "problem" here is, therefore, for the Republicans, who cannot get those vote totals when all who can and want to vote do vote. If you truly recognized the right of all adult citizens to vote, it would not appear "sad" that Democrats can win when all who want to vote do vote. It would appear sad that some Republicans advance undemocratic solutions when they cannot persuade enough voters to win.

In your final statement, you are again flipping your position and values and projecting them onto your opponents.

Finally, I will say that in 33 states now voting is overseen by Republican Secretaries of State. After working to make sure elections are fair, they very much resent unsubstantiated claims of millions of fraudulent votes.
http://www.salon.com/2016/10/18/donald-trumps-rigged-election-talk-rebuked-by-republican-secretaries-of-state/
https://thinkprogress.org/trump-election-rigging-by-gop-3bea26109db4#.tabhtdsp0

You site Salon and Think Progress? LMAO. Dude, just give it up. Close those stupid sites and open your mind to reality. 

I honestly dont care what little twists and spins your side puts on this stuff. The bottom line is a nation of laws should have voter ID and if that is too much to ask, then someone is really pathetic. And thats just it --for the left it "is" too much to ask of course lol. I dont need anyone to tell me why the left doesnt want voter ID and I dont need it justified by any little fake studies. If there was voter ID there would not be much of a democrat party left, and thats the only reason liberals are against it and everyone knows it. 

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(02-03-2017, 08:26 AM)djam Wrote: You site Salon and Think Progress? LMAO. Dude, just give it up. Close those stupid sites and open your mind to reality. 

I honestly dont care what little twists and spins your side puts on this stuff. The bottom line is a nation of laws should have voter ID and if that is too much to ask, then someone is really pathetic. And thats just it --for the left it "is" too much to ask of course lol. I dont need anyone to tell me why the left doesnt want voter ID and I dont need it justified by any little fake studies. If there was voter ID there would not be much of a democrat party left, and thats the only reason liberals are against it and everyone knows it. 

Another conservative who can't produce the evidence to support his claims, but calls studies fake. 

[djam]

(02-03-2017, 09:10 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Another conservative who can't produce the evidence to support his claims, but calls studies fake. 

Evidence? What? Even their own studies say that with voter ID democrats would get their butts kicked. What I'm saying is that smart people already know it and dont need it spun or justified.

[Griever]

(02-03-2017, 09:10 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Another conservative who can't produce the evidence to support his claims, but calls studies fake. 

hes doing what newt gingrich said

ignore facts, and focus on feelings

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(02-03-2017, 09:15 AM)djam Wrote: Evidence? What?

I believe you mentione statistics which you were subsequently asked to produce which you ignored.

Quote:Even their own studies say that with voter ID democrats would get their butts kicked. What I'm saying is that smart people already know it and dont need it spun or justified.

Are those the "fake" studies you mentioned earlier?

[Griever]

this was a more real massacre than the bowling green massacre

[djam]

(02-03-2017, 09:23 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: I believe you mentione statistics which you were subsequently asked to produce which you ignored.


Are those the "fake" studies you mentioned earlier?

If they are put out by the left you can bet that they've been twisted to fit the narrative. To the left tho, the left is never wrong. They are the only people in the world who are right about everything in their own minds lol. 

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(02-03-2017, 09:33 AM)djam Wrote: If they are put out by the left you can bet that they've been twisted to fit the narrative. To the left tho, the left is never wrong. They are the only people in the world who are right about everything in their own minds lol. 

So you believe "the left" put out a fake study which indicated the Democrats would get their butts kicked without voter ID. 

[djam]

(02-03-2017, 09:38 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: So you believe "the left" put out a fake study which indicated the Democrats would get their butts kicked without voter ID. 

I believe the left puts out a lot of fake studies --in fact I know for a fact because I used to be a leftist.  But it doesnt take a study --just half a functioning brain to figure out why its only the left who is against voter ID. Normal people dont need a study. Only folks like you who need told what to think lol

[Griever]

(02-03-2017, 09:41 AM)djam Wrote: I believe the left puts out a lot of fake studies --in fact I know for a fact because I used to be a leftist.  But it doesnt take a study --just half a functioning brain to figure out why its only the left who is against voter ID. Normal people dont need a study. Only folks like you who need told what to think lol

so again, any proof of this, or should we just take your word?

[djam]

(02-03-2017, 09:43 AM)Griever Wrote: so again, any proof of this, or should we just take your word?

There is a plethora of proof lol. 

[Griever]

(02-03-2017, 09:46 AM)djam Wrote: There is a plethora of proof lol. 

wheres your proof then?

you made the claim, its your responsibility to back up your shitposting if you have anything

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(02-03-2017, 09:41 AM)djam Wrote: I believe the left puts out a lot of fake studies --in fact I know for a fact because I used to be a leftist.  But it doesnt take a study --just half a functioning brain to figure out why its only the left who is against voter ID. Normal people dont need a study. Only folks like you who need told what to think lol

"The statistics" told you what to think. The same statistics you refuse to divulge. 

[Griever]

(02-03-2017, 09:59 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: "The statistics" told you what to think. The same statistics you refuse to divulge. 

well, we can get back to the topic at hand at least

[Bengalzona]

(02-03-2017, 10:04 AM)Griever Wrote: well, we can get back to the topic at hand at least

BTW- What was the topic of this thread again?

[Benton]

(02-03-2017, 09:30 AM)Griever Wrote: this was a more real massacre than the bowling green massacre

lets not make light of that. I was there that freezing August afternoon when bowling green was attacked by millions of refugees from Somewhereistan. It was horrible. Horrible.

personally, I got a bronze star for getting injured while saving president Obama after the White House South (the southern branch of the Whitw House here in Kentucky) was overrun. Turns out the terrorists were trying to capture the nazi gold hidden here at fort Knox in bowling green. Their plan wasn't to steal it, but to irradiate it with a dirty bomb. The head of the terrorist cell, Ahmed Goldfinger, captured me and tried to chop my junk off with the Jihad Laser. I escaped, disarmed the bomb and saved bowling green / the POTUS / the us gold supply.

of course that bum didn't give me the bronze star when I got injured, I had to get it posthumously from trump, which is why I voted for him.

[Griever]

(02-03-2017, 10:20 AM)Bengalzona Wrote: BTW- What was the topic of this thread again?

idk, you tell me 

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(02-03-2017, 10:23 AM)Benton Wrote: lets not make light of that. I was there that freezing August afternoon when bowling green was attacked by millions of refugees from Somewhereistan. It was horrible. Horrible.

personally, I got a bronze star for getting injured while saving president Obama after the White House South (the southern branch of the Whitw House here in Kentucky) was overrun. Turns out the terrorists were trying to capture the nazi gold hidden here at fort Knox in bowling green. Their plan wasn't to steal it, but to irradiate it with a dirty bomb. The head of the terrorist cell, Ahmed Goldfinger, captured me and tried to chop my junk off with the Jihad Laser. I escaped, disarmed the bomb and saved bowling green / the POTUS / the us gold supply.

of course that bum didn't give me the bronze star when I got injured, I had to get it posthumously from trump, which is why I voted for him.

Benton = Zombie?

(That's right, I ignored Kentucky White House, Ahmed Goldfinger, and everything else, and focus on the fact that posthumously means you got it after you died. )

[Dill]

(02-03-2017, 08:26 AM)djam Wrote: You site Salon and Think Progress? LMAO. Dude, just give it up. Close those stupid sites and open your mind to reality. 

I honestly dont care what little twists and spins your side puts on this stuff. The bottom line is a nation of laws should have voter ID and if that is too much to ask, then someone is really pathetic. And thats just it --for the left it "is" too much to ask of course lol. I dont need anyone to tell me why the left doesnt want voter ID and I dont need it justified by any little fake studies. If there was voter ID there would not be much of a democrat party left, and thats the only reason liberals are against it and everyone knows it. 

Again the unsupportable claim that "everyone knows" seems to be the entire base of your argument--even though clearly "everyone" doesn't, even in the Republican party. Only a very partisan segment of that party claim what you "know," a segment which has to disregard social science and bipartisan statistics since they get no support there.

So you are unable to respond to substantive points, beyond claiming they are based on "fake studies." How do you determine a study is "fake"--because it is posted on Salon.com?  Or because it undermines what you "know"?

Why would rejecting an objective, bi-partisan record of voting facts and court records and embracing what a single faction claims "everyone knows" --solely on your say so-- be "opening my mind to reality"?