2016 POTUS Election Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.

fortsbest

DCC 4Life
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
3,733
Stopping immigration from places where radical islamic terrorism flourishes until such time as proper evaluations can made on individuals or families is far more illegal than.....Granting millions of illegals quasi legal status unilaterally by presidential fiat. Besides, if done properly we absolutely have the right to control who immigrates from where and under what conditions. That is how it used to be done.
 

townsend

Banned
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
5,377
Stopping immigration from places where radical islamic terrorism flourishes until such time as proper evaluations can made on individuals or families is far more illegal than.....Granting millions of illegals quasi legal status unilaterally by presidential fiat. Besides, if done properly we absolutely have the right to control who immigrates from where and under what conditions. That is how it used to be done.
What Trump said was:
“a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on"
 

L.T. Fan

I'm Easy If You Are
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
21,689
You realize that his proposed ban is on all Muslim immigration. Illegal immigration is already, well, illegal.

The point was that here is this Muslim family who gave a child for this country, while a man who would have kept them from entering has given up nothing. Pretty simple.
Yes it was a proposed ban on all Muslims not in that USA who were trying to enter. The proposal was also tagged with the caveat until they had been properly screened.
 

townsend

Banned
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
5,377
Yes it was a proposed ban on all Muslims not in that USA who were trying to enter. The proposal was also tagged with the caveat until they had been properly screened.
Yep and it's absolutely unconstitutional. Because you can't discriminate against someone based on religion.
 

L.T. Fan

I'm Easy If You Are
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
21,689
Yep and it's absolutely unconstitutional. Because you can't discriminate against someone based on religion.
You are forgetting that those identified to be banned and screened are not US citizens. One can in fact discriminate against enemies or potential threats to national security.
 

Jiggyfly

Banned
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
9,220
You are forgetting that those identified to be banned and screened are not US citizens. One can in fact discriminate against enemies or potential threats to national security.
Except that he did not say that and used religion as the test and that is unconstitutional.
 

L.T. Fan

I'm Easy If You Are
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
21,689
Except that he did not say that and used religion as the test and that is unconstitutional.
He has related this situation dozens of times and it was never the same exact sentencing but the cumulative structure advances the idea that Muslim outside the USA could not enter the country until a system was in place to screen them. And he didn't use religion as the test he identified religious extremists that could be embedded in the muslin faith as potential national security problems. Who can actually disagree with this since it has been manifested all over the globe.
 

Jiggyfly

Banned
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
9,220


 

Jiggyfly

Banned
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
9,220
 

Jiggyfly

Banned
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
9,220
 

L.T. Fan

I'm Easy If You Are
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
21,689
He doesn't have a legitimate reason to vent against Trump. His complaint is that he lost his son in a war. A war that Trump was apposed to. He reasons for the complaint is that with Trumps ideology he son would not have been able to fight in the war. Had that been the case his son would still be alive. The poor soul is being used by Hillary to spread a message that was contrived by her and he has no clue that he has become a shill for her deviousness.
 

Kbrown

Not So New Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
2,155
He doesn't have a legitimate reason to vent against Trump. His complaint is that he lost his son in a war. A war that Trump was apposed to. He reasons for the complaint is that with Trumps ideology he son would not have been able to fight in the war. Had that been the case his son would still be alive. The poor soul is being used by Hillary to spread a message that was contrived by her and he has no clue that he has become a shill for her deviousness.
There was not one anti-war word in his speech. After your last few posts, I can only presume you did not watch the speech and are basing your assumptions around the rhetoric from the 2004 election cycle.

The man did speak pretty movingly of this country's greatness and how proud he is of his son's sacrifice.

Meanwhile, Trump responded with a crack about how his wife probably wasn't allowed to speak. What a small, petty man.
 

Kbrown

Not So New Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
2,155
I am to the point of thinking F it and voting for Hillary, whom I can't stand.

My vote doesn't count with the Electoral College anyway. With any luck a Trump loss in the Electoral College and the popular vote might cause the national Republican party to collapse in the subsequent in-fighting. I do know that I don't want a President who gives every foreign dignitary who crosses him a Twitter nickname like an 8th-grade girl.

Guess I have a few months to decide.
 

townsend

Banned
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
5,377
I am to the point of thinking F it and voting for Hillary, whom I can't stand.

My vote doesn't count with the Electoral College anyway. With any luck a Trump loss in the Electoral College and the popular vote might cause the national Republican party to collapse in the subsequent in-fighting. I do know that I don't want a President who gives every foreign dignitary who crosses him a Twitter nickname like an 8th-grade girl.

Guess I have a few months to decide.
I'm interested in what Johnson/Weld can build up, following wise. Not that I think that can legitimately challenge for the presidency, but if they can really take a bite into the GOP's voting base, I'll cast a vote to just show that I'm willing to support a conservative candidate that actually has integrity.

But one on one Hillary is still so much better than Trump by any possible criteria.(For the same reasons that Richard Nixon is better than Trump in every possible criteria). She's managed to unite a pretty fractured party, Trump's manage to obliterate one. It's telling that Clinton can get Warren, Sanders, Obama, and Bloomberg's support, while Trump can't even get a meaningful presidential candidate from this Millennium to stump for him.
 

L.T. Fan

I'm Easy If You Are
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
21,689
There was not one anti-war word in his speech. After your last few posts, I can only presume you did not watch the speech and are basing your assumptions around the rhetoric from the 2004 election cycle.

The man did speak pretty movingly of this country's greatness and how proud he is of his son's sacrifice.

Meanwhile, Trump responded with a crack about how his wife probably wasn't allowed to speak. What a small, petty man.
I didn't say Mr. Kahn was opposed to the war. I said Trump was opposed to the war. I also said Mr. Kahn,s grief was that he lost his son and Trump had no part in that. His complaint against Trump'was that he had sacrificed nothing and wondered if he had read the constitution but the same could be said about Hillary as to any sacrafice. I have no quarrel with Kahn and in fact have sympathy that he is being used in this role. Further I said earlier that Trump should have said nothing. My chief complaint is that Hillary is using this person in a way to further her cause and that is the real shame.
 

Cowboysrock55

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
52,463
The first amendment was a restriction on the powers of congress. "Congress shall make no law" citizenship is not mentioned in the amendment.
Technically speaking the first amendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion or impeding the free exercise of religion. None of that would overturn anything to do with preventing Muslims who aren't United States citizens from entering the country. Trump wouldn't get anywhere with trying to ban muslims from entering the country but you can't hide behind the constitution on this one.
 

Genghis Khan

The worst version of myself
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
37,481
The first amendment was a restriction on the powers of congress. "Congress shall make no law" citizenship is not mentioned in the amendment.

I don't think the constitution only applies to citizens, but it doesn't come from the first amendment specifically.

The constitution makes 2 clear restrictions for which citizenship is required: the right to vote and the right to be elected to public office.

Many scholars have deduced from this that, since the framers DID explicitly restrict non-citizens in the manner above, had they intended any of the rest of the constitution to apply only to citizens they would have directly stated so.

And I think that's right.

However, it's not that simple. Over the years the supreme court has upheld otherwise unconstitutional actions against non-citizens several times, including with regard to restrictions on immigration, and including discrimination against specific ethnic groups (famously Japanese people during world war two).

My suspicion is that if laws barring immigration for Muslims were passed, whether it was held up by the supreme court would depend on the scope of the law and the makeup of the court.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom