Omnibus Politics Thread: Campaign 2016 EditionFollow

Better question is why bother going through all the training and the scheming and the money to try and kill us here when we're more than adequate at doing that ourselves.

You gotta give credit to Russia here, they have the right idea. You hire someone else to bring down the U.S. from the inside then you can go back to enjoying your legal domestic abuse and vodka binges. Let's just hope ISIS never figures that out.

Whereas in the UK healthcare is free, but the wages are so low you still can't afford it.

Apparently the Russian sleeper agent was the National Security Advisor. #BushLeague

They didn't get to the point of addressing whether or not the law was targeting a religion at all, just completely punted on it. The temporary stay was upheld solely on the basis the states (Washington & Minnesota) were able to demonstrate that the ban was causing significant harm to them. Businesses were not able to have employees travel, universities were without faculty and students present, families were separated, and various other people with granted legal rights to be in the U.S. weren't allowed in any more. This is costing the states money (i.e. lost tax revenue), and residents of the states hardship. The state universities being harmed here being the most argued point (as far as this case goes) as for why the states have a right to bring legal action.

Part of this was made worse by the vagueness of the executive order. The confusion on whether it applied to people with valid visas, green cards, etc. In a sense because of some on the initial confusion and vague wording of the original document (so are people with valid visas allowed in or not? What about those with dual citizenship?) they were convinced the order could be used to limit access to these people, even if that wasn't necessarily how it was intended, so that argument held ground. Trump's words hurt here as well, of course. Adding to evidence that the government could choose the broader interpretation and exclude more people from the country.

On the other hand there wasn't convincing evidence produced by the government that people from the foreign countries in question posed a harm to the United States. Giving the benefit of the doubt here, if any evidence of this is out there it's likely wrapped up in classified documents, and probably difficult to quickly produce on the timescale that this order came out. Hence the reason that they're granting a temporary stay to the order, giving the government a chance to prepare its case, and not doing harm to the states in the meantime.

Anyway, here's the whole thing if you want to read. There are arguments laid out in there for why the States were allowed to bring the suit.

I think the mistake you are making is assuming that when I question the argument made when attacking something that this means I'm defending the thing being attacked. I'm not. I'm merely pointing out the flaw(s) in the argument being made. I personally don't agree at all with the travel ban. I think it's overly broad and disruptive. But I *don't* think that it violates any sort of 1st amendment test, nor is it anti-muslim and will call out those who are saying it is. Argue against what it actually is, not a more emotion laden thing you want to label it. The latter process is just cheap rhetoric IMO.

So really, not being cool is the primary problem.