B1rd wrote:

Nothing was overturned. Just blocked, from doing what Trump was voted into office to do. And the federal judge was overstepping was overstepping his boundaries.

8 U.S. Code § 1182 - Inadmissible aliens

"Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate."

It should be overturned soon. And I'm curious as to why you're so desperate to allow immigrants from a fundamentalist Muslim country in which women are treated like property.

B1rd wrote:

And I'm curious as to why you're so desperate to allow immigrants from a fundamentalist Muslim country in which women are treated like property.

Hika wrote:

Only thing I'll say is why he didn't ban SA? What a joke.

While oil’s collapse has deepened concern that Saudi Arabia will need to liquidate its Treasuries to raise cash, a more troubling worry has also emerged: the specter of the kingdom using its outsize position in the world’s most important debt market as a political weapon, much as it did with oil in the 1970s.

In April, Saudi Arabia warned it would start selling as much as $750 billion in Treasuries and other assets if Congress passes a bill allowing the kingdom to be held liable in U.S. courts for the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, according to the New York Times. The threat comes amid a renewed push by presidential candidates and legislators from both the Democratic and Republican parties to declassify a 28-page section of a 2004 U.S. government report that is believed to detail possible Saudi connections to the attacks. The bill, which passed the Senate on May 17, is now in the House of Representatives.

Saudi Arabia’s Finance Ministry declined to comment on the potential selling of Treasuries in response. The Saudi Arabian Monetary Agency didn’t immediately answer requests for details on the total size of its U.S. government debt holdings.

“Let’s not assume they’re bluffing” about threatening to retaliate, said Marc Chandler, the global head of currency strategy at Brown Brothers Harriman. “The Saudis are under a lot of pressure. I’d say that we don’t do ourselves justice if we underestimate our liabilities” to big holders.

picky picky wrote:

holy shit what a non interesting topic

B1rd wrote:

I'm just glad that for once we have a president who actually sticks to his campaign promises and gets stuff done.

Mahogany wrote:

B1rd wrote:

I'm just glad that for once we have a president who actually sticks to his campaign promises and gets stuff done.

Actually in this case it's a very bad thing
This would be a positive for literally any other president <3

Mahogany wrote:

pretty much the same ppl tbh
Edit: US Federal court blocked donny's request to reinstate the travel ban! (for now) Hallelujah! This is why we have systems of checks and balances. Justice prevails, for now.

ahsoka08 wrote:

I would just like to say that this new bullshit order would have stopped no terrorist attacks if it were in place before

Madvillain wrote:

time to fire the entire atlanta falcons coaching staff

B1rd wrote:

As I've already said, checks and balances does not mean straight up blocking an order the President has jurisdiction over.

Thize wrote:

Raspberriel wrote:

tbh the only reason I'm this upset is because I don't want to ever see Trump or his prominent supporters (see: Richard Spencer), who all happened to be cheering for the Pats, happy ever again

Raspberriel wrote:

maybe I'm just a huge goddamn sociopath, but I really do not wanna see Trump supporters happy about anything

Foxtrot wrote:

Raspberriel wrote:

maybe I'm just a huge goddamn sociopath, but I really do not wanna see Trump supporters happy about anything

Do you even realize what you're saying or are you just so blinded with hate that the only thing you can see and talk about is Trump? Yeah, you sound like a goddamn sociopath. Calm the fuck down. You're no different from the right-wingers who want to see liberal tears all the goddamn time for no good reason.

Raspberriel wrote:

Just returning them the favor. If they'll never see eye to eye, what's the point?

I should also clarify that I'm only talking about the Internet Trump supporters.

Raspberriel wrote:

Mostly because on the internet, they're 10x worse as if you meet with an average one irl. At least you have a chance of having a decent conversation irl than over the internet, where they just say "lol libruhl tears amiritre #pepe #tcot #maga #altright"

I'll probably lighten up on this soon enough, but I don't know when. The past few months have broken me in a few ways, tbh. Like, before the election, I don't think I've ever told someone to kill themselves or even use "kys," but that's went out the window.

Raspberriel wrote:

Mostly because on the internet, they're 10x worse as if you meet with an average one irl. At least you have a chance of having a decent conversation irl than over the internet, where they just say "lol libruhl tears amiritre #pepe #tcot #maga #altright".

Raspberriel wrote:

I'll probably lighten up on this soon enough, but I don't know when. The past few months have broken me in a few ways, tbh. Like, before the election, I don't think I've ever told someone to kill themselves or even use "kys," but that's went out the window.

Madvillain wrote:

How about we change the subject to something a bit more amicable?

Raspberriel wrote:

Mostly because on the internet, they're 10x worse as if you meet with an average one irl. At least you have a chance of having a decent conversation irl than over the internet, where they just say "lol libruhl tears amiritre #pepe #tcot #maga #altright"

I'll probably lighten up on this soon enough, but I don't know when. The past few months have broken me in a few ways, tbh. Like, before the election, I don't think I've ever told someone to kill themselves or even use "kys," but that's went out the window.

I'll probably just deactivate Twitter tbh

Raspberriel wrote:

Sorry to say, but those aren't just "12-year-old kids on the Internet." People really are that obnoxious.

Foxtrot wrote:

Raspberriel wrote:

Sorry to say, but those aren't just "12-year-old kids on the Internet." People really are that obnoxious.

Whatever suits your safe space, hon.

Foxtrot wrote:

Raspberriel wrote:

Sorry to say, but those aren't just "12-year-old kids on the Internet." People really are that obnoxious.

Whatever suits your safe space, hon.

Kisses wrote:

Raspberriel wrote:

Mostly because on the internet, they're 10x worse as if you meet with an average one irl. At least you have a chance of having a decent conversation irl than over the internet, where they just say "lol libruhl tears amiritre #pepe #tcot #maga #altright"

I'll probably lighten up on this soon enough, but I don't know when. The past few months have broken me in a few ways, tbh. Like, before the election, I don't think I've ever told someone to kill themselves or even use "kys," but that's went out the window.

I'll probably just deactivate Twitter tbh

lol. Hard times living in a first world country right

big suck wrote:

Foxtrot wrote:

Whatever suits your safe space, hon.

Insulting somebody doesnt make you in the right, hahahaha

Raspberriel wrote:

Did I ever say I'm literally struggling like some random third-world child right now? I didn't. Also, JonTron pulled this same shit a few weeks ago.

big suck wrote:

Just finished reading the entirety of this discussions and boy of boy there are so many illogical fallacies in place, foxtrot is quick to anger and responds impulsively the the rest of you have been firing that flame and giving him the reason to "disprove" your arguments which he has been massively failing to do so. Really Foxtrot just because somebody acts like a 12 year old over the internet, that really makes them 12 automatically??? what kind of assumption is that even...? anywho all of you are idiots that have no idea what you're talking about and just stirring drama for no reason lmao HAHAHAAHA

big suck wrote:

Just finished reading the entirety of this discussions and boy of boy there are so many illogical fallacies in place, foxtrot is quick to anger and responds impulsively the the rest of you have been firing that flame and giving him the reason to "disprove" your arguments which he has been massively failing to do so. Really Foxtrot just because somebody acts like a 12 year old over the internet, that really makes them 12 automatically??? what kind of assumption is that even...? anywho all of you are idiots that have no idea what you're talking about and just stirring drama for no reason lmao HAHAHAAHA

Really Foxtrot just because somebody acts like a 12 year old over the internet, that really makes them 12 automatically???

big suck wrote:

Just finished reading the entirety of this discussions and boy of boy there are so many illogical fallacies in place, foxtrot is quick to anger and responds impulsively the the rest of you have been firing that flame and giving him the reason to "disprove" your arguments which he has been massively failing to do so. Really Foxtrot just because somebody acts like a 12 year old over the internet, that really makes them 12 automatically??? what kind of assumption is that even...? anywho all of you are idiots that have no idea what you're talking about and just stirring drama for no reason lmao HAHAHAAHA

big suck wrote:

Just finished reading the entirety of this discussions and boy of boy there are so many illogical fallacies in place, foxtrot is quick to anger and responds impulsively the the rest of you have been firing that flame and giving him the reason to "disprove" your arguments which he has been massively failing to do so. Really Foxtrot just because somebody acts like a 12 year old over the internet, that really makes them 12 automatically??? what kind of assumption is that even...? anywho all of you are idiots that have no idea what you're talking about and just stirring drama for no reason lmao HAHAHAAHA

B1rd wrote:

Feel free to go back to Reddit if this place triggers you too much.

big suck wrote:

then again.. who am I to banter over a bunch of idiots. this board is for the "not so logical discussions" afterall

B1rd wrote:

Also, I'm pretty sure that most Trump supporters are 16+, just putting it out there.

Foxtrot wrote:

Then again, anyone who has the chance to vote and doesn't shouldn't be taken seriously at all, regardless of age.

Kisses wrote:

Foxtrot wrote:

Then again, anyone who has the chance to vote and doesn't shouldn't be taken seriously at all, regardless of age.

There are different reasons as to why some people don't vote other than stubborness, ignorance, ungratefulness that people died for to give them the right to vote (got I hate typing this line) etc

ungratefulness that people died for to give them the right to vote (got I hate typing this line)

Raspberriel wrote:

Funny how tolerance only entered the picture again once your side came to power.

big suck wrote:

then again.. who am I to banter over a bunch of idiots. this board is for the "not so logical discussions" afterall

Dawnsday wrote:

B1rd wrote:

Liberals have never been tolerant against people of the other side

big suck wrote:

then again.. who am I to banter over a bunch of idiots. this board is for the "not so logical discussions" afterall

Dawnsday wrote:

Dawnsday wrote:

You don't protest free speech with free speech

B1rd wrote:

I never thought it was possible to change the status quo through voting. And if all choices are bad, then there's not much reason to vote. In Australia voting is mandatory, which is pretty shitty because it just forces uninterested and uninformed people make uninformed choices.

Mahogany wrote:

B1rd wrote:

Liberals have never been tolerant against people of the other side

You don't tolerate intolerance. That's how tolerance dies. Intolerance should not be tolerated under any circumstance.

Dawnsday wrote:

Dawnsday wrote:

Using the RIGHT to your free speech to deny someone else's RIGHT to free speech is uh. No that's not quite how it works

Mahogany wrote:

Dawnsday wrote:

You don't protest free speech with free speech

Yes you do
That's literally the point of free speech

Attempting to deny free speech should not be tolerated under any circumstance.

Dawnsday wrote:

Using the RIGHT to your free speech to deny someone else's RIGHT to free speech is uh. No that's not quite how it works

Mahogany wrote:

The right to free speech applies to the government, not to private entities
If the college wants to shut down mr snowflake's hateful speeches, they can absolutely do that for any reason they want. Perfectly acceptable
If trump says people can't protest, or starts threatening them with defunding, THAT is an attack on the right to free speech, because now the government is influencing what people say. Which he did, by the way - much more serious than anything the college or protesters ever did.

Free speech never came into the berkley situation at all. The alt-right just wants an excuse to spread hate, and then cry "muh rights" when it doesn't even apply to them.

Dawnsday wrote:

Maybe we're skimming over the fact the talk Milo was going to give was not boycotted, it was outright destroyed. Riots took place, Communist propaganda was spread, Free speech boundaries were crossed.

Foxtrot wrote:

What? The only reason why Milo was in UC Berkeley is because the university was ok with him coming by.

Foxtrot wrote:

Also, I'm pretty sure the right to free speech also applies to private entities, or we must have pretty different ideas about "free speech".

Foxtrot wrote:

How could he possibly get an event there if the university didn't even want him

winber1 wrote:

big suck

Dawnsday wrote:

i dont think they were given much choice

Dawnsday wrote:

The peaceful protestors did nothing to denounce this at the time

Dawnsday wrote:

Antifa and the "peaceful protestors" as far as I am concerned, are one and the same.

Dawnsday wrote:

The university was given no choice. The police were told to stand down.

Dawnsday wrote:

Peaceful protest would just be not going

Dawnsday wrote:

it would have been a place where Milo spoke to roughly 100 people, instead it broke national (and international) news and now Milo's book is a bestseller, the protest was a failure and was counterlogical

Mahogany wrote:

Foxtrot wrote:

What? The only reason why Milo was in UC Berkeley is because the university was ok with him coming by.

Clearly they weren't in touch with the student body.

Mahoganyt wrote:

If the right to free speech applied to private entities, you couldn't get banned from any forum, for example. This place bans users. Reddit bans users. Even 4chan bans users. Private entities absolutely don't have to uphold the right to free speech.

But they're smart enough to realize that the student body is what makes up the school's identity, not the management decisions, and they realized their school did not want to hold such hateful speeches

Yes they were.
They could've said no
They could've called in police
But they're smart enough to realize that the student body is what makes up the school's identity, not the management decisions, and they realized their school did not want to hold such hateful speeches

They didn't take part, for one. Don't you think if they agreed, they'd have joined in?
Trump didn't denounce the quebec shooter after it became known they weren't muslim. Does that automatically mean trump supports the shooting of muslims? As much as I hate the man, no, it doesn't mean that, and it's a stupid argument to make.

"These two things are the same because I say they are"
Hey - you don't get to decide this, buddy. Otherwise, I can turn around and say "All trump supporters are the same as that quebec shooter and want to exterminate all muslims"

They could have not told the police to stand down. They could have done nothing. They had plenty of choices, and they made one. Which was, in my opinion, the right choice.