0

Another Democrat Supreme Fail

The Supreme Court revived President Trump’s extreme vetting travel ban Monday, ruling that most of it can go into effect — and along the way delivering an implicit rebuke to the army of lower-court judges who’d blasted the president as anti-Muslim.

So, what does this mean? Even though we got this right and the hate filled left got it wrong - it certainly doesn't mean that we're the smartest people on the planet. It just means that on this issue, we were far more honest.

So, don't go believing all the hype you might hear about how Trump wants to shut down Social Security or Medicare to pay off tax cuts - it's just more democrat hyperbole.

It's good to be on the right side!

Image for post Another Democrat Supreme Fail
0%Agree100%Disagree
Budwicks avatar People & Celebrities
Share
4 17
This user has deactivated their account.
@2598431

Myself? Patting myself on the back? I had nothing to do with the decision or the executive order!

From CNN - "On Monday, the Supreme Court actually handed Trump a win on the travel ban -- albeit not a complete one.
The Court decided to hear the full case in October but, in the meantime, knocked down the lower courts' move to completely shelve the ban. Instead, the Supremes ruled that some foreign nationals from the six states included in the second executive order could be kept from entering the U.S."

So, the travel ban will be in place. If it were unconstitutional, they wouldn't have allowed it. The part in October will allow the Supreme Court to hand the lower courts their respective asses for not doing their jobs.

This user has deactivated their account.
@2599070

I never admitted any such thing!

If you want to believe that the travel restriction is still up for grabs, fine. But Ackmed the jihadi from Iran ain't coming here for the next 90 days. And for that, I would pat Trump and the Supreme Court on the back for.

You'll never pay up if we were to bet. You're obviously not trustworthy. I mean, you made shit up about what I wrote, and did it for free. (Well, it cost a slice of your self respect, but you'll never miss that.]

Feel free to save this conversation if you want. If by some miracle the Supreme Court decides the travel restriction executive order is unconstitutional this fall, you'll be able to ram it up my ass sideways.

This user has deactivated their account.
@2599738

Restriction / ban; a distinction without a difference.

So, you want to bet that the Supreme Court will decide this fall whether the travel ban / restriction they just allowed is constitutional or not?

Budwick, stop parroting Fox, it's beneath you.

They upheld the halt of the lower court. People with ties to the U.S. get to come and those here won't get stuck in limbo. That was the main provision people opposed and it won't go into effect.

I personally would love to know why Saudi Arabia isn't on that list given they're the largest state sponsor of terrorism. Instead of halting travel from there, he's going to sell them nearly $110B in American arms... that's a conservative estimate, btw.

How you can spew his talking points when he's getting behind stuff like that is beyond me.

@ForkNdaRoad Budwick, stop parroting Fox, it's beneath you. They upheld the halt of the lower court. People with ties to the...

My quote happened to be from CNN, Fork - not FOX. CNN is beneath everyone.

The main provision of the Executive Order was to vet immigrants from particular countries where jihadist extremism is prevalent.

Maybe Saudi Arabia isn't on the list because Trump believes that Sudi Arabia has had a change of heart.

I would love to know why so many are bent out of shape over Trump trying to protect the country!

I'm glad he's at least selling rather than just giving shit away like Obama did, amirite?

@Budwick My quote happened to be from CNN, Fork - not FOX. CNN is beneath everyone. The main provision of the Executive...

We already had one of the tightest, most restrictive visa / travel application processes in the world as it relates to those nations. Perhaps you've forgotten that was originally an Obama-era policy.

The real problem is since 2001, no fatalities, much less mass casualty terrorist attacks, have been carried out in the U.S. by anyone with a background in any of those countries. That is precisely why Kellyanne Conway had to go to the extraordinary length of fabricating a terrorist attack that never occurred, "The Bowling Green Massacre," in an effort to hold something up a potential scenario in which this ban might prevent terrorism.

I would love to know how Trump supporters could actually believe this constitutes "protecting the country." If he were serious about protecting the country, Saudi Arabia would be on that list regardless of what he thinks is "in their heart."

Having his son-in-law personally intervene in what would otherwise have been a $395B arms deal, to get the fire-sale price of $110B (for the largest state sponsor of terrorism in the world and the only nation with a direct connection to the worst terrorist attacks in this country's history), is selling alright... it's selling out the American People.

That only way that could make someone glad is if they're completely oblivious to or simply ignoring the facts and for that matter, pretty recent history.

@ForkNdaRoad We already had one of the tightest, most restrictive visa / travel application processes in the world as it relates...

When we're talking about national security, why be so cavalier?

Oh wait - you're not talking about national security - your talking about dissing Trump.

Never mind.

@Budwick When we're talking about national security, why be so cavalier? Oh wait - you're not talking about national...

You think that's how I'm responding, lmao that's rich. Let's look at the definition of the word and see who that might apply to as it relates to our above conversation.

Merriam Websters Definition
cavalier:
:marked by or given to offhand and often disdainful dismissal of important matters

I'm the only one in this conversation discussing the facts about our national security, you have dismissed them all, because you can't dispute them, opting rather for talking points. If this president had a scintilla of concern about national security he wouldn't be selling billions worth of our tech to our primary enemy while simultaneous pretending to punish countries that have no direct connection whatsoever to domestic terrorism.

When he stops undermining our national security by aiding our enemies, I'll stop calling him out on it.

@ForkNdaRoad You think that's how I'm responding, lmao that's rich. Let's look at the definition of the word and see who...

Fork - there is plenty to talk about regarding the Saudi Arabian arms sale. I'm not so sure it is a good deal either.

If you don't want to give a simple and reasoned response to the travel restriction thing - then maybe it would have been best to not respond at all.

@Budwick Fork - there is plenty to talk about regarding the Saudi Arabian arms sale. I'm not so sure it is a good deal...

I gave you a reasoned response, you just didn't like it and chose to ignore it.

"We already had one of the tightest, most restrictive visa / travel application processes in the world as it relates to those nations. Perhaps you've forgotten that was originally an Obama-era policy.

The real problem is since 2001, no fatalities, much less mass casualty terrorist attacks, have been carried out in the U.S. by anyone with a background in any of those countries. That is precisely why Kellyanne Conway had to go to the extraordinary length of fabricating a terrorist attack that never occurred, "The Bowling Green Massacre," in an effort to hold something up a potential scenario in which this ban might prevent terrorism."

This ban is meaningless. It doesn't apply to the country from which most domestic terrorist originate. There is not one shred of evidence to suggest it would have stopped any of the recent terrorist attacks (most of which were committed by Americans) much less that it would prevent future terrorist attacks. It's 90 day implementation will have passed by the time they finish ruling on it and he's submitted no serious plan to Congress to effect once that time period is up.

This is nothing more than a superficial act designed to appear as if he kept a promise when in fact it has no teeth and is completely devoid of meaning.

Other presidents have done exactly the same thing but for some reason it is now wrong for Trump to put a ban in place. I hope common sense will prevail in other SC rulings. There may be hope yet.

Please   login   or signup   to leave a comment.