Now it's getting serious

http://newsthump.com/2017/02/10/shit...-all-caps-key/

Apparently it is an Android device.

Probably because you have never experienced discrimination and neither have I. I'm not going to claim it doesn't exist though.

Just a little thing called the US Constitution.

I never said it didn't exist.
And why would you assume that i've never experienced discrimination?

Thanks for quoting this poll from Politico; The poll was conducted from Feb. 2 to Feb. 4.
You might like to quote the newer Poll, also from Politico, that says "Majority of U.S. voters oppose Trump immigration actions" source.

There is nothing wrong with Trump trying to implement his election promises; the problem is the crap way he performs this role.
Anybody normal would have had his ban order reviewed by constitutional lawyers to ensure it was watertight and he would also have had the border control people instructed on the implementation.

Now you're making me laugh. The American People want a secure country, of course, but how many Americans even knew some of those 7 countries existed before the ban? How many would link them (apart from Iran and Iraq) to terrorism?

Like the judges have said, how many terrorist attacks in the US have ever been carried out by people from these countries - 0.

It is not the will of the American people that is at fault, it is the dumbass fake president. Trump is making the US more of a target, maybe he needs to ban himself in the interests of national security.

There's the overall issue with any proactive rules: They intend to hinder the unwanted action before it happens. Of course, that allows for a lot of criticism which will just go in circles. I would like to think that Obama's regime selected these countries because of intel suggesting risk and threat. The argument that 'well no one every attacked on the US soil from these countries therefore they are safe' is not a strong one at all. Also since the stricter rules were put in place, we also don't have a lot of data on how many (if any) potential attacks they hindered.
Such rules are a lose-lose situation for an unpopular politician: Do nothing and be criticized if something happens, Do something and be criticized that the rules are useless because nothing happened.

__________________
"You have reached the end of you free trial membership at BenjaminFranklinQuotes.com" -Benjamin Franklin

WH releases list of terror suspects admitted to US from travel ban countries

I thought the US Constitution was for US citizens and people on US soil?

How is the US Constitution relevant to an Iraqi in Baghdad?

Agree about the problem with proactive rules.

The problem where your argument falls down is that Trump has already said he doesn't need intel. He doesn't talk to experts because he knows everything already, he goes by "gut feel" or whatever. He already said he will make decisions based on what he thinks, not on what the experts advise. His argument for the court was that he knew what was best and nobody should question it.

He is reaping what he sowed.

"Obama's regime selected these countries because of intel suggesting risk and threat." And then they put a stricter vetting process in place and there have not been any issues since.

Trump during his campaign called for developing new "extreme vetting" screening procedures that would weed out potential terrorists from visa applicants by asking questions about their views on the US and ensuring that individuals support the US's pluralistic values.

One issue is that it is not clear how in practice Trump will improve the vetting; or even if it can be significantly improved?
Without any clarity then it is just more political bla bla!

But it doesn't really explain why the countries which have a proven track record of attacks on US soil are also not (if not more so) included in the ban, does it?

It will only take one attack, or thwarted attack, or even an arrest with bundles of evidence of an individual or individuals from, say, Saudi or Egypt or one from one of the other nations not on the ban list but have previous terrorist activity in the US to cause Trump a massive shitstorm.

If the list of terror suspects admitted to US from travel ban countries is relevant then they should have submitted it to the Appeal Court in time last Monday.
What a bunch of losers.

If the list is like the WH list of "unreported terror incidents" then it is just more toilet paper

careful...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamburg_cell

Anyone?

But doesn't that just highlight the complexity of the origins of terrorists and their backgrounds, which further compounds the stupidity of the ban?

I don't disagree with you, I'm just saying that the way Trump is interweaving (maybe in his own mind?) "immigration", "refugees", "illegals" and "terrorists" as somehow the same thing is a big fat honking alarm bell of his utter confusion.

Some of those US citizens have relatives in Iraq who would like to visit ....maybe?

Oh, they'd 'like to visit'.

Does their desire to visit somehow grant them the right to enter the US?

Exactly. Don't give him any more ideas.

The execution / implementation of this has been a train wreck.

But

The concept of stronger vetting and stricter border security is what Americans seem to want. He could have slowed down and come out a real winner had he worked this within the system.

Of course not, but it gives them the right to apply and go through the same vetting process as everybody else and not be the subject of a blanket ban.

Are you trolling or just plain stupid?