The Political Discussion Thread

[Falcon Horus]

A society has the right to protect itself from the inevitable criminal elements.

You just granted a society more rights than a woman.

You're halfway to China.

10 strips of bacon says he calls me a liberal

You're already branded with the L of libtard.
Wear it proud!



*waves membership card of socialist party*

Raised in a central/left family -- Democratic Catholic Center + Socialist Left = great political combo.

At least he would listen to facts, not just protest and shout the spekaer down, cause they happen to be conservative.

You're joking, right?

And how the hell can you say there is no facts about terrorist ties to them?

Did they commit terrorist acts on US soil?
Did they commit terrorist acts on US citizens within their borders?

Somalia - DUH< ever heard of Al Shabbab?

Hungary -- Vitezi Rend (“Order of Heroes”) members and sympathizers can't travel to the US -- they are banned from doing so

Syria - ISIS

Area's controlled by IS, the Syrian rebels (not to be confused with terrorists) and Assad, and terrorist group formerly known as Al-Nusra, and Kurds are around as well (labelled terrorists by the Turks).

How are those NOT FACTS enough for ya?

You want facts -- here you go:

Guide to Trump’s Executive Order to Limit Migration for “National Security” Reasons

Alex Nowrasteh compiled a list of foreign-born people who committed or were convicted of attempting to commit a terrorist attack on U.S. soil from 1975 through 2015. Below is a table with the distribution of their countries of origin (Figure 1). The first seven countries are those to be initially and, hopefully, temporarily denied visas. During the time period analyzed here, 17 foreign-born folks from those nations were convicted of carrying out or attempting to carry out a terrorist attack on U.S. soil and they killed zero people. Zero Libyans or Syrians intended to carry out an attack on U.S. soil during this time.

Figure 1

Foreign-Born Terrorist Country of Origin, 1975-2015

Country	Terrorists	Murders	Terrorists (percent)	Murders (percent)
Iran	6	0	3.9%	0.0%
Iraq	2	0	1.3%	0.0%
Libya	0	0	0.0%	0.0%
Somalia	2	0	1.3%	0.0%
Sudan	6	0	3.9%	0.0%
Syria	0	0	0.0%	0.0%
Yemen	1	0	0.6%	0.0%
Afghanistan	3	0	1.9%	0.0%
Algeria	4	0	2.6%	0.0%
Armenia	6	1	3.9%	0.0%
Australia	1	0	0.6%	0.0%
Bangladesh	2	0	1.3%	0.0%
Bosnia	1	0	0.6%	0.0%
Coatia	9	1	5.8%	0.0%
Cuba	11	3	7.1%	0.1%
Dominican Republic	1	0	0.6%	0.0%
Egypt	11	162	7.1%	5.4%
Ethiopia	1	0	0.6%	0.0%
France	1	0	0.6%	0.0%
Ghana	1	0	0.6%	0.0%
Guyana	2	0	1.3%	0.0%
Haiti	3	0	1.9%	0.0%
India	2	0	1.3%	0.0%
Japan	1	0	0.6%	0.0%
Jordan	4	0	2.6%	0.0%
Kazakhstan	1	0	0.6%	0.0%
Kosovo	2	0	1.3%	0.0%
Kuwait	2	6	1.3%	0.2%
Kyrgyzstan	2	3	1.3%	0.1%
Lebanon	4	158.5	2.6%	5.2%
Macedonia	3	0	1.9%	0.0%
Mexico	1	0	0.6%	0.0%
Morocco	3	0	1.9%	0.0%
Nigeria	1	0	0.6%	0.0%
Pakistan	14	3	9.1%	0.1%
Palestine	5	2	3.2%	0.1%
Saudi Arabia	19	2,369	12.3%	78.3%
Serbia	2	0	1.3%	0.0%
South Korea	1	0	0.6%	0.0%
Taiwan	1	1	0.6%	0.0%
Trinidad and Tobago	2	0.5	1.3%	0.0%
Turkey	1	0	0.6%	0.0%
United Arab Emirates	2	314	1.3%	10.4%
United Kingdom	3	0	1.9%	0.0%
Uzbekistan	3	0	1.9%	0.0%
Vietnam	1	0	0.6%	0.0%
Total	154	3,024	100.0%	100.0%

And why is it (as i have often pointed out), that many of those who are ANTI_death penalty, are also PRO-abortion? WHY to them, is it OK for a woman to kill the fetus, but NOT a hardened murderer/rapist?

So you are okay with letting the woman suffer after the rapist gets his lethal injection?
You know, that constant reminder how her child was conceived.



Nevertheless, I prefer solitary confinment to the death penalty as the latter is the easy way.
Sure, most socio/psychopaths lack the emotions to feel sorry about what they have done, and countries who have the death penalty give them an easy way out.

Also, there's that annoying little thing called being wrongfully convicted which has cost many a man/woman their life. In order to avoid that, it's better to be still alive when someone takes the time to look at those cases again. Maybe, why Conviction was such an interesting show (probably cancelled).

Where are you getting this from?

Breitbart, Fox, heritage.org...

Quite frankly, if you actually gave a crap about terrorism, you would be asking this question, not me, just like it would not be me asking the question about Russian involvement in your election, not me.

Knowledge, facts... Trump doesn't need that... and then Yemen happened.

[Annoyed]

Very much so.
Centrist is the best path, it allows you to take the good from both sides and not be a raving lunatic. If I were to "err" one side however, it would be left as it encourages more personal freedom than the right, and I agree (mostly) with what they feel the government should and should not be involved in.

Ok, so I can assume you think the government should not be involved in a couple or a woman's decision to have a child or not, right?

Do you also think it's not the government's business to provide for that child if the parents can't?

[Annoyed]

You just granted a society more rights than a woman.

You're halfway to China.

In what way? Where have I said that a woman doesn't have the right to defend herself?

[Falcon Horus]

In what way? Where have I said that a woman doesn't have the right to defend herself?

The fact I have to explain says it all... ...and I'm not going to. Not in the mood.

Figure it out on your own, I say.

[Annoyed]

The fact I have to explain says it all... ...and I'm not going to. Not in the mood.

Figure it out on your own, I say.

Well, in context of recent discussion, I'm guessing that you are saying an abortion is a form of defense for women, which is most certainly is not, aside from risks to the mother's life situations. An abortion is an attack against the human life that is at present residing within her, not a defense.

[jelgate]

You just granted a society more rights than a woman.

You're halfway to China.



You're already branded with the L of libtard.
Wear it proud!



*waves membership card of socialist party*

Raised in a central/left family -- Democratic Catholic Center + Socialist Left = great political combo.





You're joking, right?



Did they commit terrorist acts on US soil?
Did they commit terrorist acts on US citizens within their borders?



Hungary -- Vitezi Rend (“Order of Heroes”) members and sympathizers can't travel to the US -- they are banned from doing so



Area's controlled by IS, the Syrian rebels (not to be confused with terrorists) and Assad, and terrorist group formerly known as Al-Nusra, and Kurds are around as well (labelled terrorists by the Turks).



You want facts -- here you go:

Guide to Trump’s Executive Order to Limit Migration for “National Security” Reasons

Alex Nowrasteh compiled a list of foreign-born people who committed or were convicted of attempting to commit a terrorist attack on U.S. soil from 1975 through 2015. Below is a table with the distribution of their countries of origin (Figure 1). The first seven countries are those to be initially and, hopefully, temporarily denied visas. During the time period analyzed here, 17 foreign-born folks from those nations were convicted of carrying out or attempting to carry out a terrorist attack on U.S. soil and they killed zero people. Zero Libyans or Syrians intended to carry out an attack on U.S. soil during this time.

Figure 1

Foreign-Born Terrorist Country of Origin, 1975-2015

Country	Terrorists	Murders	Terrorists (percent)	Murders (percent)
Iran	6	0	3.9%	0.0%
Iraq	2	0	1.3%	0.0%
Libya	0	0	0.0%	0.0%
Somalia	2	0	1.3%	0.0%
Sudan	6	0	3.9%	0.0%
Syria	0	0	0.0%	0.0%
Yemen	1	0	0.6%	0.0%
Afghanistan	3	0	1.9%	0.0%
Algeria	4	0	2.6%	0.0%
Armenia	6	1	3.9%	0.0%
Australia	1	0	0.6%	0.0%
Bangladesh	2	0	1.3%	0.0%
Bosnia	1	0	0.6%	0.0%
Coatia	9	1	5.8%	0.0%
Cuba	11	3	7.1%	0.1%
Dominican Republic	1	0	0.6%	0.0%
Egypt	11	162	7.1%	5.4%
Ethiopia	1	0	0.6%	0.0%
France	1	0	0.6%	0.0%
Ghana	1	0	0.6%	0.0%
Guyana	2	0	1.3%	0.0%
Haiti	3	0	1.9%	0.0%
India	2	0	1.3%	0.0%
Japan	1	0	0.6%	0.0%
Jordan	4	0	2.6%	0.0%
Kazakhstan	1	0	0.6%	0.0%
Kosovo	2	0	1.3%	0.0%
Kuwait	2	6	1.3%	0.2%
Kyrgyzstan	2	3	1.3%	0.1%
Lebanon	4	158.5	2.6%	5.2%
Macedonia	3	0	1.9%	0.0%
Mexico	1	0	0.6%	0.0%
Morocco	3	0	1.9%	0.0%
Nigeria	1	0	0.6%	0.0%
Pakistan	14	3	9.1%	0.1%
Palestine	5	2	3.2%	0.1%
Saudi Arabia	19	2,369	12.3%	78.3%
Serbia	2	0	1.3%	0.0%
South Korea	1	0	0.6%	0.0%
Taiwan	1	1	0.6%	0.0%
Trinidad and Tobago	2	0.5	1.3%	0.0%
Turkey	1	0	0.6%	0.0%
United Arab Emirates	2	314	1.3%	10.4%
United Kingdom	3	0	1.9%	0.0%
Uzbekistan	3	0	1.9%	0.0%
Vietnam	1	0	0.6%	0.0%
Total	154	3,024	100.0%	100.0%

So you are okay with letting the woman suffer after the rapist gets his lethal injection?
You know, that constant reminder how her child was conceived.



Nevertheless, I prefer solitary confinment to the death penalty as the latter is the easy way.
Sure, most socio/psychopaths lack the emotions to feel sorry about what they have done, and countries who have the death penalty give them an easy way out.

Also, there's that annoying little thing called being wrongfully convicted which has cost many a man/woman their life. In order to avoid that, it's better to be still alive when someone takes the time to look at those cases again. Maybe, why Conviction was such an interesting show (probably cancelled).



Breitbart, Fox, heritage.org...



Knowledge, facts... Trump doesn't need that... and then Yemen happened.

*waves independent card*

*is alone*

[SoulReaver]

You just granted a society more rights than a woman.

You're halfway to China.

didn't you know? conservatism is about the Collective having priority over the Individual :|

one day the US could even end up worse than China

[jelgate]

At least we will never be Belgium. We won't let other countries push around like the Dutch. Seriously FH, the Dutch?

[aretood2]

SO we might as well shred the constitution then, cause the Universal human rights declaration has it all covered..
Got it.

And did the US sign OFF on that declaration?
If not, why then are we to be held TO IT?

The US Voted in favor of the declaration actually. You see, many Americans in the 1940's were interested in this thing called "Morality". Look it up, it's a very interesting concept shared by many human beings. I know it can be hard to swollow for people who play fast and loose with morals, or lack any in the first place, but give it a chance. It might make you a better person.

Since we keep getting proven that liberals seem to operate on feeling NOT FACTS, imo it wouldn't MATTER WHAT KNOWLEDGE we have to counter their arguments with, IT WON'T MATTER>
JUST that it's trump doing this, is enough for these liberal judges to keep ruling against him..

Read back and tell me you honestly think that none of the "Liberals" have posted facts, such as links to scientific studies, articles, and other fact type things versus your "In my opinion" or general "feels".

At least we will never be Belgium. We won't let other countries push around like the Dutch. Seriously FH, the Dutch?

One word, Waffles.

[garhkal]

Did Obama act on that list?
Why yes, he did, just not the same way. He increased vetting procedures for everyone, which is why you currently have the 2 year procedure you do now. Did he "ban" people from that list? Nope, not even Iraq before you go there.

And how was "his wanting increased vetting" any different from what trump wants? OR Is it yet again, cause of his campaign speches where he said "ban them all"?

It's -not- about ties to terrorism, it is about proving they are a -direct threat- to the US. In other words, why are the countries that have -directly produced- people who have damaged the US not on the list? trump could ban any or all people or refugees from any country proven to have produced terrorists by EO, that is well within his purview and would not face a challenge in the courts. What he has done however is provided a list of countries with no history of attacks on US soil, and peddled it as "protection" while spending months saying he will ban all Muslims. Where are the countries that -have- produced terrorists? Where is Saudi Arabia? Where is Pakistan?
Quite frankly, if you actually gave a crap about terrorism, you would be asking this question, not me, just like it would not be me asking the question about Russian involvement in your election, not me.

So, which of those countries have been direct threats?
IRAN, LYBIA, SOMALIA, not sure on sudan or Lebanon though.. BUT if we were to restrict/need more vetting on all coming from countries that ARE a direct threat, that would mean no more from russia or china, as well..

Because they do not provide the burden of proof required by the constitution for the president to exercise his power?

And can you quote the part of the constitution that says the president must show via PROOF "XYZ" before putting a block on those from country ABC? Several of the links I HAVE given, show the opposite, saying he can block those 'for what ever reason'.. NOTHING what so ever about having to meet a 'burden of proof' like he is in a court of law..

Should the law punish a woman who "auto aborts" a pregnancy?
By your definition, she is a murderer, so let's lock her up, right?

What the heck is an auto-abort/??

Did they commit terrorist acts on US citizens within their borders?

Lets see. Libya - ATTACKED A US Consulate, killing the ambassador.
Somalia - took over SEVERAL US Ships for hostages.
Iran - took over US patrol craft and took them BACK TO THEIR home port as prisoners..

Do those not count?
BUT thanks for posting that list.

Hungary -- Vitezi Rend (“Order of Heroes”) members and sympathizers can't travel to the US -- they are banned from doing so

And how the hell can someone IDENTIFY a member of that order, without profiling??

So you are okay with letting the woman suffer after the rapist gets his lethal injection?

AND HOw many times have i said, in these abortion discussions, i AM FIRMLY OK WITH ALLOWING A WOMAN TO ABORT in the case of rape/incest?
What i was trying to point out, is How stupid is it that these pro-abortion crowd, are often ALSO ANTI-Death penalty, to where in essence they are saying its NOT OK to kill a harden criminal, but it IS ok to kill an innocent??

[Gatefan1976]

And how was "his wanting increased vetting" any different from what trump wants? OR Is it yet again, cause of his campaign speches where he said "ban them all"?

Vetting does not -stop- anyone cold, it slows down the process, trump wants a BAN. If you cannot work out the difference between going slow and stopping, I question your thought processes. As for what trump has said, yes, it matters, he is your PRESIDENT for gods sake, don't you think his words should mean something? why do you think elsewhere in the world we take what he says -seriously-? Are you going to wait until you are in a war with someone over some mind numbingly DUMB thing he says (like pissing off Germany and England in one freaking day) and wait for some double speaking douchebag shill like old spice or conjob to say "but that's not what he meant, he used quotation marks when he said he wanted to "tapp dat ass"?

So, which of those countries have been direct threats?
IRAN, LYBIA, SOMALIA, not sure on sudan or Lebanon though.. BUT if we were to restrict/need more vetting on all coming from countries that ARE a direct threat, that would mean no more from russia or china, as well..

Listen to what I said, -NO ATTACKS ON US SOIL-, have you got it yet?
The other problem is, if it is because of "potential terrorism of US soil", why the HELL are the people on the "fake news non fact liberal emotional list" that HAVE produced terrorists -not- on the list?

And can you quote the part of the constitution that says the president must show via PROOF "XYZ" before putting a block on those from country ABC? Several of the links I HAVE given, show the opposite, saying he can block those 'for what ever reason'.. NOTHING what so ever about having to meet a 'burden of proof' like he is in a court of law..

What you are linking is NOT THE CONSTITUTION, IT IS THE LAW, learn the ******* difference will you. Just how long do you think your constitution is??
Here, read the bloody thing and tell me what in the constitution gives the POTUS the powers you seem to think it does:
http://constitutionus.com/

What the heck is an auto-abort/??

Miscarriage.

Lets see. Libya - ATTACKED A US Consulate, killing the ambassador.
Somalia - took over SEVERAL US Ships for hostages.
Iran - took over US patrol craft and took them BACK TO THEIR home port as prisoners..

Do those not count?

The only one that meets FH's standard is the consulate attack by virtue of international law recognizing consulate land as owned by the nation to which the consulate is attached, the rest do not.
But that's international law............

And how the hell can someone IDENTIFY a member of that order, without profiling??

By using the intelligence apparatus that the president has full access to?
Not that you could tell lately.............

What i was trying to point out, is How stupid is it that these pro-abortion crowd, are often ALSO ANTI-Death penalty, to where in essence they are saying its NOT OK to kill a harden criminal, but it IS ok to kill an innocent??

Because, unlike you, they do not believe life begins at conception?

[aretood2]

Checks and balances means one side of the 3 is no more powerful than the other. BUT when the judicial is ruling like this, they are in essence SAYING that their idea of what laws should be is more important than what the Legisltive (or executive) is.. AND SINCE the constitution DOES GIVE the EB the power to mark certain people as not visa allowed, THEIR saying its unconstitutional is in DIRECT CONTRADICTION witht he constitution.

Read the Constitution, it doesn't say that at all. It doesn't even have the word "immigration" nor any variation of it. The closest mention is the power to establish a uniform code of naturalization, and that power is given to Congress, not the Executive. The immigration powers are implied powers, once again, given to Congress via the "Elastic Clause".

ALSO its rather hammy that not even 2 hours after the trial ended, he managed to crank out the 43 page document detailing his reasonings. AND RIGHT AFTER Obama made a visit TO Hawaii..

Then you obviously have not been looking in the right spots. Check out this link..
https://www.law360.com/articles/8855...igrants-report

Relevant text..


Sure as hell seems concrete to me.

The law you are citing here does require an actual credible threat that the president may deem. However, the case against Trump is that he has plainly stated that he will institute a ban. The lawsuits allege that Trump's ban isn't about security, but about his campaign promise, therefore his executive order is outside of the purview of the law you cited. Thus, can be unconstitutional. Just be happy that that entire law isn't being ruled unconstitutional.

Pay attention to that last part, "when he or she finds that their entry to the U.S. would be detrimental to the interests of the country." He has to prove that he has in fact found their entry to be detrimental. And it is the Courts' constitutional job to interpret that law and decide if Trump is abiding by it or using it as a smoke screen to fulfill his Muslim ban promise.

Now if you want to avoid the Court, get Congress to pass a law.

Then check out
http://myattorneyusa.com/scope-and-h...y-proclamation

Says almost exactly the same thing..
AND since one of the reasonings the judge used to say this EO was illegal, was that it infringes on their 1st amendment rights for religious freedom. EXACTLY HOW THE HELL does someone in ANOTHER COUNTRY get protected by OUR Constitution when they are not even US CITIZENS???

Pay attention to this line:
"In order to restrict entry of any aliens or of a class of aliens under section 212(f), the President must find that the entry of such aliens or class of aliens into the United States “would be detrimental to the interests of the United States.” "

The courts are finding that the President hasn't found any such thing. He is merely trying to fulfill his campaign promise of a Muslim ban. One of his spokespeople even said as much on national TV.

The US has signed various international treaties that got ratified by Congress, which according to the Constitution makes them the law of the land. But I honestly don't even see why the 1st amendment would even need to be taken into consideration. It's clear, naturalization is Congress' power, not the President's power. The INA should have never been passed as is with such broad powers, it encroaches on Congress' constitutional purview. Like I said, be happy that the courts haven't struck that law down.

Yes i DO gatefan. BUT i am pointing out to many who do feel that the US is guilty of bringing/shipping IN those slaves, are wrong in that matter.. YET THEY never seem to acknowledge that..

Fun fact. Many of the founders (mainly northerners) wanted to include the institution of slavery as a grievance in the Declaration of Independence. It was in the first draft, but then removed in fear that the southern colonies would bail out.

AND without knowing who the hell those people are/vettng those coming in to ensure they are not part OF Those groups, EXACTLY How the hell would trump block 'those specific groups"??

If only we had the most sophisticated intellegence community with the most advanced technologies at our disposal...

And how was "his wanting increased vetting" any different from what trump wants? OR Is it yet again, cause of his campaign speches where he said "ban them all"?

How much more increased can our vetting get? And why can't he do that now? Why wait for a ban? It's been over a month, you mean to tell me that he hasn't been increasing our vetting in that time? So if there is no ban at all (DOn't think that Gorsuch would automatically support it, he's not the Anti-Muslim justice you are looking for) he'll never increase the vetting process?

So, which of those countries have been direct threats?
IRAN, LYBIA, SOMALIA, not sure on sudan or Lebanon though.. BUT if we were to restrict/need more vetting on all coming from countries that ARE a direct threat, that would mean no more from russia or china, as well..

The countries responsible for 9/11 seem conspicuously absent. Almost as if Trump had business interests in at least one of them...

And can you quote the part of the constitution that says the president must show via PROOF "XYZ" before putting a block on those from country ABC? Several of the links I HAVE given, show the opposite, saying he can block those 'for what ever reason'.. NOTHING what so ever about having to meet a 'burden of proof' like he is in a court of law..

Can you quote the part of the constitution that gives the president that power to begin with?

[SoulReaver]

What i was trying to point out, is How stupid is it that these pro-abortion crowd, are often ALSO ANTI-Death penalty, to where in essence they are saying its NOT OK to kill a harden criminal*, but it IS ok to kill an innocent??

yeah man unlike Prolife+pro death penalty which makes sense: to execute someone you must make sure they're born in the first place







* like Jesse Tafero?

[SGalisa]

I haven't been here in a while..but I suppose I *should* drop by now and then..

Have you been drinkingAlisa's coolaid again?

I drink Hawaiian Punch, NOT coolaid. The sugar in the Punch knocks you out into la-la sleepy land..
And my home-made "Shirley Temple"s are just as sweet..marachino cherries..mmmmmm..
I have a sweet tooth.

Far more tastier than drinking the politics bantering of this political thread.

Now, on a lighter note..

How *young* are you? Please don't take this the wrong way, but I thought you were heading on up towards a happy retirement (over 50 years), based on some of your comments..
----AND---(based on some comments)
PH seems to be in her 30's or younger..
I know FH is about 20+ years younger than me..
Annoyed is closer to the ages of my (older) siblings, I think..
(I don't always read GW birthdates)

I'm 36.

I *knew* that (saw it a few years ago, when you were 32), which is why I said I was 20+ years older.. Older than 56, thus over half century old.. It's downhill from there, and once I reached 50, I stopped counting.

Get any significant injuries now, and it's just another one to add to the permanently achy list.
Snowstorms don't help. Especially, snow accumulations over 23 inches in one day's dumping! I've dealt with storms that deep before, but once the older years start settling in, it takes more than hot chocolate to soothe those aches and pains.
This last 2-footer (with snow-drifts) was 2 feet too much. Need to move where snow isn't too deep, or win the mega-lottery (fat-chance on the lottery). So, there goes my wishful Alaska and Antarctica dome home abodes..

[Coco Pops]

So now are we in Soviet Russia?

They are installing political officers in the Whitehouse to keep an eye on everyone... WTF?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/power...=.f140378da4f1

Yeah like that hasn't been tried in other countries..