Trump's order on immigration and the wacko liberal response

Screaming about then. That's what I meant which you should have known. I got sucked into all the rest of the stuff later.

Then maybe you shouldn't have objected to the court decisions, or started screaming against the idea that non-citizens have Constitutional rights.

They were right before the election. Clinton was more popular. Which is why she got more votes, remember?And it is entirely plausible that his already low popularity should have taken a further beating from his multiple fuck-ups and failures.

The pre-election polls had her winning by as much as 98% in some cases. Big fat lies, and they certainly confused the liberals.Conservatives do not think Trump is failing at anything, only liberals think that, magnifying small things. Every conservative source I tune into thinks he's doing great.

They DON'T have the Constitutional rights I had in mind, you sleazy twister of the truth, and courts that say they do deserve to be screamed at.

Linky? Well, maybe that's how things sound in your echo chamber, but there are plenty of people, even some conservatives, who are not immune to reality.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Oh, and I don't think she was all that much more popular if at all. I believe there is sufficient evidence already that there was enough election fraud of various kinds to make that a lie too. I believe the long long list of evidence at Frontpagemag that I posted on the Voter fraud thread is enough to make the case despite all the liberal attempts to find fault with it.

The liberals are in fact exactly that, immune to reality. And I suppose the "conservatives" you have in mind are the turncoat Republicans. Nothing new in other words.We maintain our high view of Trump. I'm talking about at least half a dozen radio talk shows, and that many internet sources, counting only the high profile sources. They aren't without criticism of Trump but they are overwhelmingly in favor of him anyway. That's not an echo chamber.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

What's more, they're glue and you're rubber! It is: and a small one at that.

Small? By what standard? Are you aware that Infowars gets over 40 million listeners, and it was up to 80 million during the election reporting, while some of the "mainstream" news shows get as little as a million? I just heard about one conservative broadcaster who gets 90 million, I'll have to find out more about him.

So when you reply to the assertion that Message 133With Message 134Now I will admit that you went on to say But that is not what NoNukes said, and you still denied the existence of Due Process rights.And let us note that I corrected you on that issue Message 140So, your opponents invoked Due Process rights from the Constitution and you denied the existence of any Constitutional rights for non-citizens. The fact that you also mischaracterised your opponent's arguments does not make me dishonest - it is just another example of your dishonesty.

So if the polls before the election, the election results, and the polls after the election all tell the same story of his unpopularity, then they must all be lies. 'Cos the unthinkable alternative is that the world doesn't exactly conform to your prejudices.Here's an anti-Trump demonstration: Here's a pro-Trump demonstration:

Where did you get that number? Did you hear it on ... Infowars? Just a guess.Do you believe everything else they say, like the stuff about Bush being behind 9/11?

The definition is because of the 14th amendment. People with green cards did not obtain them illegally either. The point is what the definition of "person" means, and quite clearly citizens as used in the 14th Amendment is a subset. Not quite. What the Trump's order does (in part) is declare rights that folks already had to be here are null and void without due process. Slaves actually had fewer rights that they would have if they could prove exactly which country they had originated from. But according to the Dred Scott decision, not having any records of their origins meant that slaves did not have even the rights foreigners had.

You seem to agree with the point I've made to others; that there is already discrimination against certain religious beliefs in immigration policy. So far, the constitution has allowed it.Trump is certainly on dodgy ground in singling out nations, apparently, because of a 1965 law that forbids discrimination in immigration based on nationality. That only applies to immigrants, though, and not other travellers It would be quite easy to devise a restriction that would officially apply to all religions and ideologies but would only in fact affect Islam.What about a temporary complete ban on any religion or well defined ideological group if members of the group have committed more than twenty separate lethal attacks on unarmed civilians in more than twenty different countries in this century? Sounds quite reasonable on the face of it.Apparently the U.S. law can assess the spirit of Trumps actions, so his silly twittering about Muslims would be helpful against something like the above.