Your post is BOGUS and it's not getting any traction because people here are waking up and can't be fooled by all this anti-American liberal socialist propaganda. However, I will thank you for making everyone aware of the Steve Bannon talk at CPAC which is spot on about what the American people can expect to happen as those who oppose Trump inject chaos into the system every step of the way as we fight the WAR to take the country back. The part you referenced begins at 4:45 mark where Steve Bannon explains why things will get much worse before they get better. Steve is 100% correct. Trump is reversing decades of progress towards a globalist agenda to get back to a nationalist agenda and his opposition will stop at nothing to ensue his failure. This includes murder and possibly an economic collapse if they indeed have the power to make it happen. "A new order is forming" Steve Bannon VERY RARE public speech --pete--
Explanation of other vote; Absolutely nothing. This country dodged a huge bullet by not electing Hillary. Obama had his chance now it is someone else's turn. Buck up and live with it. We survived Obama now we can survive Trump.
No. We did not dodge the bullet. We got hit right in the head. Now 25% of us are brain dead. That would be the 25% who voted for Trump.
Ya that's the left POV, very myopic IMO. It completely disregards the EC and the reason it was instituted. I used to think the same way as you before I educated myself. The EC is set up to equalize State contributions. Huge population densities do not necessarily represent the views of the entire United States of America. We are a very diverse country not only in traditions and ethnicity but, in basic philosophies. If all the population of the U.S. were in say...LA...Would you still want a popular vote? As we know, pure Democracy does not work very well. For instance.....Imagine the scenario where you have 10 men and 1 woman. The men all vote to rape the woman. Democracy at its worst.
Actually trump supporters were the people who were smart enough to notice just how badly they were getting screwed by two parties who as the Princeton Study evidenced, no longer represented the majority who live in America. This was clearly a change election, with sanders on one side, trump on the other, saying the same things about our economy, how it did not serve America, how it was destructive of the People. So it is the Hillary supporters who were brain dead, and of course the brain dead are incapable of seeing that they are the owners of dead brains. That comes with the territory. Enough voters wanted change, and they got it. They voted for a man who said he would change things, and this man hit the ground running doing the unimaginative, even the impossible. He actually started keeping his promises. something your tribe has never seen from your presidents. He is doing what he ran on and which got him the EC votes. You guys need to reform your party, and no longer be corporate/banking democrats. You need to represent the same class of people who put the dems into power from FDR onward until Reagan pulled a populist campaign and stole some of your voters. Trump took those kind of voters and handed Hillary her arse, for the democrats were too intoxicated with big donor money to pay attention to the country outside of their bubble.
Trump's new travel ban is still a Muslim Travel Ban and an unconstitutional violation of the First Amendment's protection of Freedom of Religion, March 9, 2017 In the over two dozen original lawsuits against Muslim Ban 1.0 the Department of Justice was unable to produce one shred of evidence that a creditable threat to the United States existed based upon citizenship to the "banned" countries. Trump's own Department of Homeland Security contradicted the Executive Order's claims and found no significant evidence that people from the "banned" countries represented a threat to the United States https://qz.com/919257/department-of...port-rejects-donald-trumps-travel-ban-claims/ Muslim Ban 2.0 repeats the executive order from Muslim Ban 1.0 calling for a report of the issuing of visas that was to be on Trump's desk not later than February 27th. The claims that our visa "vetting" process is dependent upon other governments is false and it has been demonstrated over the last sixteen years as being false. In the 16 years since the 9/11 terrorist attacks not a single international terrorist attack has been committed on US soil. Our vetting process of political refugees has also been proven the be more than adequate. In the last 40 years not a single person vetted for political refugee status has committed a terrorist attack in the United States or been convicted of conspiring to commit a terrorist attack in the United States. The law that authorizes the President to issue a ban or restriction limits the president to cases where a "finding" that is a legal term for a "statement of fact" establishes a threat. Muslim Ban 1.0 and 2.0 are not based upon any "evidence" that a threat exists and are instead based solely upon anti-Muslim prejudice and religious intolerance in violation of the Constitution. We wait with confidence that the federal courts, specifically the Seattle court, will reject the Trump administration's submission of Muslim Ban 2.0 changed the fact that it's still a "Muslim Ban" and not based upon any evidence of a specific terrorist threat to the United States either by the citizens of the six remaining countries or by the refugees from Syria. The religious intolerance of Muslims by the Trump administration is unacceptable under the Constitution.
I don't know how many times liberals must be reminded, that certain constitutional protections only apply to US exclusively. Not asylum seekers, not tourists. 1st amendment protections are for instance granted, but 2nd amendment protections are restricted. One must comply with, and meet with immigration law requirements, which can be ammended, even dictated, by the POTUS.
Not true. The Electoral College was created to remove special interests and the popular vote from the selection of the president and vice president of the United States. http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa68.htm The Electoral College members were to be selected by the people, not political parties, and they were to be free to evaluate the potential candidates and select the most qualified person independent from any political influence to become the president and vice president. This process was soon corrupted by the politicians (political parties) with the ratification of the 12th Amendment to the US Constitution. Arguably Hillary Clinton would not have been selected to be the president and Donald Trump would never have even been considered by "men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station" in selecting the Chief Executive (president) of the United States,
More unsupportable snowflake nonsense. The new travel ban allows travel by Muslims from every country, except 6; from those 6 countries, people of every religion are prohibited from entering... Thus, "Muslim ban" is a statement of deliberate dishonesty. Never mind the fact non-citizens living outside the US are not protected by the 1st Amendment.
It is true...You said it yourself "remove special interests" Special interests like small, overpopulated states controlling the rest of Geographic America. That equalizes contributions to the nation by other less populated areas.
I have joined a Facebook group called Indivisible, which is a sort of a liberal Tea Party. They give me "marching orders" as to what I can do against Trump on a daily basis. Nothing, of course is compulsory and no suggestions as to what we might do are even slightly illegal. So far I called my Congressional representatives 3x and intend on actually visiting one in their office sometime soon I also understand there is another group like this called RESIST, but I have made no inquiries as to them, yet.
Oh, I can't even recall how many times I've had to "repeat" it on this forum. Apparently it's not the sort of thing liberal universities include in their syllabus'.
As U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema noted in the Virginia lawsuit in issuing a preliminary injunction against the first travel ban the fact that it doesn't address all Muslims or that others might inadvertently be caught up in the ban does change the fact that the purpose was to ban Muslims based upon the campaign promise. This was supported by the public statements of former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani that stated the president tasked him with creating a "Muslim ban" that could work legally. http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/...p-asked-me-to-create-a-legal-Muslim-ban-.html As with "Muslim Ban 1.0" the new "Muslim Ban 2.0" lacks a "finding" (statement in fact - evidence) of an actual terrorism threat based upon the citizenship of people from the six countries in the ban. Additionally it lacks any evidence of a problem with issuing visas to citizens from those countries. The executive order erroneously alleges that US national security is solely dependent upon information provided for by foreign governments when there's no evidence of this dependency. It implies that the safeguards in our visa issuing process from these countries has lead to or will lead to failures by allowing known terrorists or those associated with known terrorists to enter the United States that contradicts the historical record of no international terrorist acts being committed on US soil since the revisions, numerous and on-going, that have been made to our visa issuing processes subsequent to the 9/11/2001 terrorist attacks. The government will have it's opportunity to produce actual evidence of a terrorist threat but we already know for a fact that it can't do that based upon the "citizenship" criteria because Trump's own Department of Homeland Security has already issued a preliminary report refuting this claim. as well as a including information indicating that citizens from these countries have no history of ever committing a terrorist attack or conspiring to commit a terrorist act on US soil. https://apnews.com/39f1f8e4ceed4a30a4570f693291c866 The fact that people living in foreign countries are not directly protected by the First Amendment to the US Constitution does not change the fact that the government of the United States is prohibited from violating the religious freedom of any person subjected to the laws or actions of the US government anywhere in the world. The constraints and prohibitions established by the US Constitution apply to the US government, including the President, is all of it's actions. There is no creditable threat to justify the travel ban and it was issued based solely upon anti-Muslim prejudice and religious intolerance to fulfill the Trump campaign promise to "Ban Muslims" from entering the United States in violation of the Constitution. As Rudy Giuliani established the sole purpose is to ban Muslims "legally" by nefariously hiding this sole intention to circumvent the Constitutional prohibition. The "motive" was clearly established before Muslim Ban 1.0 and the motive did not change with the issuing of Muslim Ban 2.0. It's a Muslim Ban and everyone in the United States knows that's exactly what it is.
I don't know how many times conservatives must be reminded that constraints and prohibitions imposed on the US government apply to all actions of the US government. For example the 8th Amendment prohibits our government from inflicting cruel or unusual punishment and that applies to all agents of the US government, regardless of whether they're members of the CIA, or individuals that are contracted to work for the US government, or members of the US military, from ever subjecting any person anywhere in the world to cruel and unusual punishment (torture). The identical Constitutional prohibition applies to the US government that under the First Amendment is prohibited from ever denying freedom of religion to any person anywhere in the world. The prohibition is imposed on our government in all of it's actions regardless of where those actions take place. The law authorizing the President to impose prohibitions or restrictions is highly limited because it only allows the President to act based upon a finding ("Wherever the President Finds...") and under the law a "finding" is a statement of fact that's supported by conclusive evidence. The President has no authority to prohibit or restrict access to the United States based upon mere opinion reflective of prejudice and/or religious intolerance. There's no evidence to support Trump's Muslim Ban 2.0 and we know the motive was anti-Muslim prejudice and religious intolerance because the President clearly established that during his presidential campaign.
I don't know how many times I've had to "repeat" the fact that our government must comply with the US Constitution in all of it's actions. Apparently it's not the sort of thing that conservatives include their knowledge of the Constitutional government of the United States.
I urge everyone to view the following video presentation by CIA operations officer Clare Lopez. It's an hour long but I guarantee you, it will enlighten and educate you to what's happening in America in regards to Muslims already here and why it's so important to have extreme vetting into the future. In short, our American culture, government, and traditional religions are under attack. Please watch.
The left wing meltdown has them clinging to anything they can hold on to. Let's let them believe this. Poor guys are tuckering out.
This opinion has no basis in fact, as the ban does not ban people from entering the country based on their religion - Muslims are unaffected by the ban, so long as they do not arrive from the states in question, where they are treated the same as Jews, Christians etc. The 2nd ban is no different. And so, my post remains sound.
