Trump calls for complete ban on Muslims entering the U.S.

#176
#176
I wonder if he's elected will he sit on a gold throne in the oval office when giving speeches?
 
#177
#177
BearCat204 said:
I like this. At this point, we can really be picky about who we want to choose to come here :)
Click to expand...

Agreed.

Hog erred by not mentioning open borders for hot, promiscuous women. And freak athletes who commit to Tennessee. Other than that, it is a sound plan.
 
#178
#178
lawgator1 said:
Do you understand the difference between the Second, the Fifth, and the Fourteenth Amendments?

Also, of note, the SCOTUS today turned down a case that held that a locality could regulate certain guns. Interesting ....
Click to expand...

I do. One shouldn't have their right to buy a gun (2nd) taken away because they are suspected of a potential crime without due process (5th).
 
#182
#182
BearCat204 said:
I like this. At this point, we can really be picky about who we want to choose to come here :)
Click to expand...

The way I look at it is that you don't want people showing up to your party empty handed do you? Immigrants want to come here, great. Bring some value or stay home.
 
#183
#183
lawgator1 said:
Then you agree that a gun can be withheld under certain circumstances, that it is not absolute ?
Click to expand...

After due process. A citizen shouldn't be on the no fly list without a chance to defend themselves either.
 
#186
#186
hog88 said:
The way I look at it is that you don't want people showing up to your party empty handed do you? Immigrants want to come here, great. Bring some value or stay home.
Click to expand...

That or a mandatory served time in the military for those who are physically able or at least one family member.
 
#188
#188
volinbham said:
Yes.

However in order to do so one must receive due process. The no fly list violates due process.

https://reason.com/blog/2015/12/07/why-the-aclu-is-suing-no-fly-list
Click to expand...


I don't know enough about the process itself to comment on the no fly list litigation, but I note that the article seems to avoid discussing that process and instead focuses on specific unjustified inclusions. But it seems like those are being corrected.

It is important to distinguish between criticizing initial boobery in putting someone on the list by mistake versus there being no mechanism to correct the error.

The article conflates the two, which in due process terms is a pretty heinous mistake in the analysis.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#189
#189
hog88 said:
With the caveat that the government could withhold evidence due to national security reasons. That my friend is not due process.
Click to expand...

Yep. If you look at the ACLU cases it's clear that evidence is withheld and you don't even know you are on the list unless you ask.

Suspicion of a crime is no reason to remove one's rights.

Why don't we bar anyone on the no fly list from voting while we're at it?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#190
#190
hog88 said:
With the caveat that the government could withhold evidence due to national security reasons. That my friend is not due process.
Click to expand...


Actually, if there is judicial review of the designation that it is not disclosable, it's quite common.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#191
#191
lawgator1 said:
I don't know enough about the process itself to comment on the no fly list litigation, but I note that the article seems to avoid discussing that process and instead focuses on specific unjustified inclusions. But it seems like those are being corrected.

It is important to distinguish between criticizing initial boobery in putting someone on the list by mistake versus there being no mechanism to correct the error.

The article conflates the two, which in due process terms is a pretty heinous mistake in the analysis.
Click to expand...

No it's saying regardless of how you got on there you are not allowed to see all the evidence to make a case that you shouldn't be on there.

Also, before you have a Constitutional right denied you should be informed you have lost that right. Currently, you would have no idea until you went to purchase and were denied. Even then all you'd know is you'd been denied. Until last year, the government wouldn't even tell you if you were on there if you asked.
 
#192
#192
lawgator1 said:
Actually, if there is judicial review of the designation that it is not disclosable, it's quite common.
Click to expand...

1) Can you show said judicial review?
2) How can you demonstrate your innocence if you are barred from the basis for the case against you?
 
#195
#195
BearCat204 said:
That or a mandatory served time in the military for those who are physically able or at least one family member.
Click to expand...

Already got enough socioeconomically disenfranchised hard working Americans doing quarter master type jobs in the military.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#197
#197
I'm sick at home today and watching the news channels. The condemnation of Trump's comments across all party lines is remarkable. But Trump is no doubt appealing to an energetic segment of the GOP. Laura Ingaham is expressing worry that Trump's candidacy will result in a brokered convention, and that when the nomination is taken away from Trump for the sake of the party, it may cause the party to unravel.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#198
#198
lawgator1 said:
I'm sick at home today and watching the news channels. The condemnation of Trump's comments across all party lines is remarkable. But Trump is no doubt appealing to an energetic segment of the GOP. Laura Ingaham is expressing worry that Trump's candidacy will result in a brokered convention, and that when the nomination is taken away from Trump for the sake of the party, it may cause the party to unravel.
Click to expand...

The party may unravel anyway. One thing that Trump supporters need to understand is that Hillary Clinton WILL be the Democratic Party nominee for President and we can not for sure say the same for Trump.


Tom Nichols stated last night that "If Trump loses the nomination, one of two things happens.

1)Trump goes third party. Tears the country apart. Hillary wins.

2)his massive ego does not let him merely endorse the nominee. He becomes, in effect, the running mate. Dems hang him on GOP.

his latter possibility was not a pressing issue until he became so toxic that the eventual nominee is going to have to repudiate him.

The GOP as an institution can repudiate him now, or the nominee *alone* has to repudiate him later, which will be far worse.

If Trump doesn't win the nomination he would have imprinted his face on the person that does win.

If Trump does indeed win the nomination he will hand the election to Hillary because 1) She will turn out massive minority support in the cities and other urban areas 2) Independents will just not vote for Trump. 3) 25% of the Republican Party will just not show up and vote because Trump is a divisive Party figure.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#199
#199
And another thing. Have noticed that for ever problem that the country has Trumps solution for it requires a bigger, more intrusive government. Explain how that is Conservative again???
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#200
#200
carlos86 said:
And another thing. Have noticed that for ever problem that the country has Trumps solution for it requires a bigger, more intrusive government. Explain how that is Conservative again???
Click to expand...

Because the majority of "conservatives" like big government, or at least the people they elect do.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top