Suck on that, swallowers of orange guck
Paradoxical wrote:
Fat hurts wrote:
Family separation was a Trump policy. Sessions announced the new policy on camera. Then he implemented the new policy. The video of Sessions announcing new policy is out there for anyone to see.
Obama never, ever, ever had a policy that babies should be taken from their mothers at the border.
But Trump did. He kidnapped those children and now Biden has signed an executive order that says government agencies have to do everything possible to get those kids back with their parents.
First, I never said anything about Trump's policy on separation, but even on that front you are oversimplifying the situation. First, the policy to for migrant children to go under the care of U.S. marshals was nothing new under the Trump. Separation happens only when officials find that the adult is falsely claiming to be the child's parent, is believed to be a threat to the child, or if the adult is being criminally charged. Second, this policy only applies to migrants illegally crossing the border, not those seeking asylum (these are two different things). What Trump's policy did was make it a zero-tolerance offense (first illegal entry is a misdemeanor, second is a felony) for immigrants to illegally cross the border, so those that were illegally crossing with children would automatically be separated. However, most that were charged would shortly plead guilty and would be reunited with their children and sent back across the border. The problem lies in migrants that would illegally cross the border, only to apply for asylum after. This is because a different law states that unaccompanied children can only held in custody for 20 days which is longer than the asylum, which is where you see kids that have been indefinitely separated and put into foster care.
This is sad, and poor policy, but could be prevented if people didn't try to illegally cross in the first place.
And none of that excuses the fact that Trump changed the policy and Sessions explicitly announced that they would start taking children away from their parents.
Obama never had such an evil policy.
Trump kidnapped those children and he did it without any plan to reunite the children with their parents. That is a fact.
Paradoxical wrote:
agip wrote:
most people are talking about the wall and muslim ban...but what is really irking trump is things like this:
https://twitter.com/CNNPR/status/1352371304897404930?s=20Another lie from the Left, there is no such thing as a "Muslim ban."
Yes there was. That's why the courts disallowed it. Then he did another version of the "Muslim ban" and that got struck down too. The third try was constructed to be just good enough to pass judicial scrutiny.
But it was still a "Muslim ban". That was its purpose all along.
The Muslim ban happened just like the kidnappings happened.
Trump was evil and history will record him as evil.
Paradoxical wrote:
SDSU Aztec wrote:
I don't agree with your interpretation, but regardless, a good politician should speak clearly. Half of reporters and other politicians want to make someone look bad and being ambiguous gives an them the opportunity to twist the meaning against the speaker. Trump did that another time where it wasn't clear whether he was calling just MS-13 members "Animals"or all illegal immigrants.
Eh, it's almost always the left who claims to misunderstand him. Like the time the left tried to say that Trump told the American people to inject themselves with bleach...
We all saw what he said. He thought it was a good idea to study bleach injections.
Trump was not only evil. He was dumb as a rock.
Fat hurts wrote:
Paradoxical wrote:
Another lie from the Left, there is no such thing as a "Muslim ban."
Yes there was. That's why the courts disallowed it. Then he did another version of the "Muslim ban" and that got struck down too. The third try was constructed to be just good enough to pass judicial scrutiny.
But it was still a "Muslim ban". That was its purpose all along.
The Muslim ban happened just like the kidnappings happened.
Trump was evil and history will record him as evil.
Hey look more lies from Fat Hurts.!!! Fat Hurts , one question for you. JUST ONE Q for Fat Hurts. If it was truly a Muslim ban then why the HECK was Indonesia not on the ban list??? Did you know that Indonesia has more Muslims than any other country in the world?? So - it WAS NOT a Muslim ban - instead it was a ban of terrorist countries who also happened to be majority Muslim.
Sally Vix wrote:
Hey look more lies from Fat Hurts.!!! Fat Hurts , one question for you. JUST ONE Q for Fat Hurts. If it was truly a Muslim ban then why the HECK was Indonesia not on the ban list??? Did you know that Indonesia has more Muslims than any other country in the world?? So - it WAS NOT a Muslim ban - instead it was a ban of terrorist countries who also happened to be majority Muslim.
Ok, Sally troll. It's such the perfect example of a toll post that it deserves the bite LOL
It was a ban on Muslim countries that were convenient for Trump. No country where Trump had investments were in the ban.
JAKARTA (Reuters) - Donald Trump Jr, the eldest son of the U.S. president, said he was upbeat about two planned Trump-branded projects in Indonesia and dismissed any risk of conflict of interest over involvement in the luxury resorts in Southeast Asia’s biggest economy.
TheCorrectorI wrote:
Sally Vix wrote:
Hey look more lies from Fat Hurts.!!! Fat Hurts , one question for you. JUST ONE Q for Fat Hurts. If it was truly a Muslim ban then why the HECK was Indonesia not on the ban list??? Did you know that Indonesia has more Muslims than any other country in the world?? So - it WAS NOT a Muslim ban - instead it was a ban of terrorist countries who also happened to be majority Muslim.
Ok, Sally troll. It's such the perfect example of a toll post that it deserves the bite LOL
It was a ban on Muslim countries that were convenient for Trump. No country where Trump had investments were in the ban.
JAKARTA (Reuters) - Donald Trump Jr, the eldest son of the U.S. president, said he was upbeat about two planned Trump-branded projects in Indonesia and dismissed any risk of conflict of interest over involvement in the luxury resorts in Southeast Asia’s biggest economy.
Indonesia was NOT on the ban list. Largest Muslim country in the world. WAS NOT a Muslim ban.
Fat hurts wrote:
Paradoxical wrote:
Another lie from the Left, there is no such thing as a "Muslim ban."
Yes there was. That's why the courts disallowed it. Then he did another version of the "Muslim ban" and that got struck down too. The third try was constructed to be just good enough to pass judicial scrutiny.
But it was still a "Muslim ban". That was its purpose all along.
The Muslim ban happened just like the kidnappings happened.
Trump was evil and history will record him as evil.
Really? What are the muslim populations North Korea, Venezuela, Eritrea, Myanmar?
Sally Vix wrote:
TheCorrectorI wrote:
Ok, Sally troll. It's such the perfect example of a toll post that it deserves the bite LOL
It was a ban on Muslim countries that were convenient for Trump. No country where Trump had investments were in the ban.
JAKARTA (Reuters) - Donald Trump Jr, the eldest son of the U.S. president, said he was upbeat about two planned Trump-branded projects in Indonesia and dismissed any risk of conflict of interest over involvement in the luxury resorts in Southeast Asia’s biggest economy.
Indonesia was NOT on the ban list. Largest Muslim country in the world. WAS NOT a Muslim ban.
Are you requesting it be called more specifically "Ban for Muslim countries where Trump didn't have investments"? I'm sure we can all agree to honor your request.
TheCorrectorI wrote:
Sally Vix wrote:
Hey look more lies from Fat Hurts.!!! Fat Hurts , one question for you. JUST ONE Q for Fat Hurts. If it was truly a Muslim ban then why the HECK was Indonesia not on the ban list??? Did you know that Indonesia has more Muslims than any other country in the world?? So - it WAS NOT a Muslim ban - instead it was a ban of terrorist countries who also happened to be majority Muslim.
Ok, Sally troll. It's such the perfect example of a toll post that it deserves the bite LOL
It was a ban on Muslim countries that were convenient for Trump. No country where Trump had investments were in the ban.
JAKARTA (Reuters) - Donald Trump Jr, the eldest son of the U.S. president, said he was upbeat about two planned Trump-branded projects in Indonesia and dismissed any risk of conflict of interest over involvement in the luxury resorts in Southeast Asia’s biggest economy.
Um, alright, then why didn't he include more countries with higher Muslim populations? What were his business dealings in Bangladesh or Egypt or Turkey or Algeria or Pakistan that kept him from banning muslims from those countries?
Paradoxical wrote:
TheCorrectorI wrote:
Ok, Sally troll. It's such the perfect example of a toll post that it deserves the bite LOL
It was a ban on Muslim countries that were convenient for Trump. No country where Trump had investments were in the ban.
JAKARTA (Reuters) - Donald Trump Jr, the eldest son of the U.S. president, said he was upbeat about two planned Trump-branded projects in Indonesia and dismissed any risk of conflict of interest over involvement in the luxury resorts in Southeast Asia’s biggest economy.
Um, alright, then why didn't he include more countries with higher Muslim populations? What were his business dealings in Bangladesh or Egypt or Turkey or Algeria or Pakistan that kept him from banning muslims from those countries?
There are 225 MILLION Muslims in Indonesia. They with their 225 million Muslims was not on the Muslim ban list. North korea has 3000 Muslims and WAS on the Muslim ban list. It was NOT a Muslim ban. You Liberals are beyond pathetic.
Trollminator wrote:
Night and day
https://twitter.com/huffpost/status/1352393285835366404?s=21
Twitter + HuffPost
Really scraping the bottom of the barrel I see.
Fat hurts wrote:
Paradoxical wrote:
Another lie from the Left, there is no such thing as a "Muslim ban."
Yes there was. That's why the courts disallowed it. Then he did another version of the "Muslim ban" and that got struck down too. The third try was constructed to be just good enough to pass judicial scrutiny.
But it was still a "Muslim ban". That was its purpose all along.
The Muslim ban happened just like the kidnappings happened.
Trump was evil and history will record him as evil.
Fat Hurts - you called Trump dumb as rocks. You said the Muslim ban when 225 million Muslims live in Indonesia. 3000 in North Korea . I would say you are as dumb as rocks but that would not be fair to rocks. You are the dumbest person I ever met.
...it isn't accurate to call it a 'Muslim ban' because it wasn't a Muslim ban.
however, it was unconstitutional and had to be changed to be made legal.
It was also highly unamerican and highly unethical with anti-muslim fervor at its root.
Paradoxical wrote:
Fat hurts wrote:
Yes there was. That's why the courts disallowed it. Then he did another version of the "Muslim ban" and that got struck down too. The third try was constructed to be just good enough to pass judicial scrutiny.
But it was still a "Muslim ban". That was its purpose all along.
The Muslim ban happened just like the kidnappings happened.
Trump was evil and history will record him as evil.
Really? What are the muslim populations North Korea, Venezuela, Eritrea, Myanmar?
You mean those nations that were not part of the original Muslim ban? The original ban was for the Muslim nations of Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen.
Trump made it clear why he wanted the ban. It was targeted at Muslims. The other nations were added so that it could get past the courts.
It was a "Muslim ban". That's what Trump said he wanted. He was just too stupid to find a legal way to do it in the beginning.
agip wrote:
...it isn't accurate to call it a 'Muslim ban' because it wasn't a Muslim ban.
however, it was unconstitutional and had to be changed to be made legal.
It was also highly unamerican and highly unethical with anti-muslim fervor at its root.
It is entirely accurate to call it a Muslim ban.
Did it ban all Muslims? No.
Was it a ban that targeted Muslims? Yes. Absolutely. Positively.
A ban that targets Muslims is a 'Muslim ban'.
Trump was evil.
Trump did it.
As a nation, we mustn't forget it.
Fat hurts wrote:
agip wrote:
...it isn't accurate to call it a 'Muslim ban' because it wasn't a Muslim ban.
however, it was unconstitutional and had to be changed to be made legal.
It was also highly unamerican and highly unethical with anti-muslim fervor at its root.
It is entirely accurate to call it a Muslim ban.
Did it ban all Muslims? No.
Was it a ban that targeted Muslims? Yes. Absolutely. Positively.
A ban that targets Muslims is a 'Muslim ban'.
Trump was evil.
Trump did it.
As a nation, we mustn't forget it.
Sorry. Gotta agree with agip on this one.
Did it ban a certain subset of Muslims or all Muslims?
Fat hurts wrote:
agip wrote:
...it isn't accurate to call it a 'Muslim ban' because it wasn't a Muslim ban.
however, it was unconstitutional and had to be changed to be made legal.
It was also highly unamerican and highly unethical with anti-muslim fervor at its root.
It is entirely accurate to call it a Muslim ban.
Did it ban all Muslims? No.
Was it a ban that targeted Muslims? Yes. Absolutely. Positively.
A ban that targets Muslims is a 'Muslim ban'.
Trump was evil.
Trump did it.
As a nation, we mustn't forget it.
Fat Hurts are you retarded? 225 million Muslims live in Indonesia - the country was not banned. 3000 in north korea and banned. Serious question. ARE you retarded?