You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
- Smoking Guns
- Rep: 330
Re: US Politics Thread
The law is on the side of Trump. It is clearly written that he can do this. He has the authority. There is no proof religion is involved and the court declined to say it was a Muslim ban.
Re: US Politics Thread
The law is on the side of Trump. It is clearly written that he can do this. He has the authority. There is no proof religion is involved and the court declined to say it was a Muslim ban.
Of course there's proof. He said he was going ban Muslims. Rudy validated this was a "written not to actually say it discriminates while it discriminates." On TV.
Let's say Randall is mayor of an affluent, majority white city. Next door Mitch is mayor of a poor majority black city. Randall is terrified that the blacks in Mitch's city will come to his city, even though the minority of blacks who already have are not criminals. So he touts a "ban all blacks from our city" law during his election. But his advisors tell him it's against the law to write a law that discriminates against anyone based on race or religion. So Randall writes a law that bans EVERYONE from Mitch's city.........except for minorities. They're allowed. And those minorities happen to be trendy white hipsters. Randall is still discriminating against blacks even though his law doesn't specifically say so. Plus, he was dumb enough to say his real intentions during his campaign. And it wouldn't matter if Mitch's city was in Canada. You can't legislate discrimination.
- Smoking Guns
- Rep: 330
Re: US Politics Thread
Smoking Guns wrote:The law is on the side of Trump. It is clearly written that he can do this. He has the authority. There is no proof religion is involved and the court declined to say it was a Muslim ban.
Of course there's proof. He said he was going ban Muslims. Rudy validated this was a "written not to actually say it discriminates while it discriminates." On TV.
Let's say Randall is mayor of an affluent, majority white city. Next door Mitch is mayor of a poor majority black city. Randall is terrified that the blacks in Mitch's city will come to his city, even though the minority of blacks who have already are not criminals. So he touts a "ban all blacks from our city" law during his election. But his advisors tell him it's against the law to write a law thast discriminates against anyone based on race or religion. So Randall writes a law that bans EVERYONE from Mitch's city.........except for minorities. They're allowed. And those minorities happen to be trendy white hipsters. Randall is still discriminating against blacks even though his law doesn't specifically say so. Plus, he was dumb enough to say his real intentions during his campaign. And it wouldn't matter if Mitch's city was in Canada. You can't legislate discrimination.
The court refused to mention religion. What part of that do you not understand. They aren't calling it a Muslim ban.
Re: US Politics Thread
Oh, just commenting on your anecdotal story about Missouri being a place of drunken rednecks. Just commenting that your city is more dangerous than most middle eastern cities. But continue to mock fly over country.
Flyover states should be mocked IMO. Most suck.
But once again, you feel everything must be fair and balanced...we get it, we get it.
Fuckin A. I'd love to have Spicer's job
You do it here for free...do what you love!
Or you could do Melissa McCarthy's job as Spicer.
Now that would be impressive.
Re: US Politics Thread
misterID wrote:Smoking Guns wrote:The law is on the side of Trump. It is clearly written that he can do this. He has the authority. There is no proof religion is involved and the court declined to say it was a Muslim ban.
Of course there's proof. He said he was going ban Muslims. Rudy validated this was a "written not to actually say it discriminates while it discriminates." On TV.
Let's say Randall is mayor of an affluent, majority white city. Next door Mitch is mayor of a poor majority black city. Randall is terrified that the blacks in Mitch's city will come to his city, even though the minority of blacks who have already are not criminals. So he touts a "ban all blacks from our city" law during his election. But his advisors tell him it's against the law to write a law thast discriminates against anyone based on race or religion. So Randall writes a law that bans EVERYONE from Mitch's city.........except for minorities. They're allowed. And those minorities happen to be trendy white hipsters. Randall is still discriminating against blacks even though his law doesn't specifically say so. Plus, he was dumb enough to say his real intentions during his campaign. And it wouldn't matter if Mitch's city was in Canada. You can't legislate discrimination.
The court refused to mention religion. What part of that do you not understand. They aren't calling it a Muslim ban.
They have evidence that it was constructed to discriminate.
- Smoking Guns
- Rep: 330
Re: US Politics Thread
Randall Flagg wrote:Oh, just commenting on your anecdotal story about Missouri being a place of drunken rednecks. Just commenting that your city is more dangerous than most middle eastern cities. But continue to mock fly over country.
Flyover states should be mocked IMO. Most suck.
But once again, you feel everything must be fair and balanced...we get it, we get it.
Where do you live?
- Smoking Guns
- Rep: 330
Re: US Politics Thread
Smoking Guns wrote:Where do you live?
Nevada. Mock away!
Nevada, where all the nuclear sludge in the US goes to get buried. Nevada is a nice state full of good people.
- Randall Flagg
- Rep: 139
Re: US Politics Thread
I like Nevada, but I also think flyover country has the most beautiful scenery. Seattle was the perfect balance for me.
