world

Trump's refugee ban goes to appeals court as travelers arrive to tears

56 Comments
By ERIC TUCKER

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2017 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

©2023 GPlusMedia Inc.

56 Comments
Login to comment

Trump's refugee ban goes to appeals court as travelers arrive to tears

The Super Bowl ads were an unequivocal rejection of Make America Hate Again:

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2017/feb/06/superbowl-ads-trolling-trump-the-world-is-more-beautiful-the-more-you-accept

5 ( +5 / -0 )

While I don't want to demonize other countries, Trump didn't explain why the ban didn't include biggest terrorist group funding countries and have active terrorists on there soil.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Trump is a bigger threat to this country than those he is trying to keep out.

Trump, Bannon, and his idiot squad are about to see: America will not become a fascist state so easily. We will fight relentlessly to preserve our democratic institutions and our rights.

3 ( +7 / -4 )

Trump didn't explain why the ban didn't include biggest terrorist group funding countries

You mean the (oil-rich) Artists Formerly Known as Princes?

4 ( +4 / -0 )

This man does not seem to aware that the biggest threat to the lives of American people is he, himself, and the law allowing ordinary citizens to own guns.

5 ( +7 / -2 )

Pathetic! Trump is spot on with his extreme vetting the threat to the sovereignty of the US are liberals and Democrats that could care less who comes in the country, but then when something bad happens, they go in panic mode and they wonder why they don't get elected to anything, their biggest problem, they NEVER listen. If it goes to the Supreme Court, more than likely, it would go in Trump's favor, so I hope this goes to the top.

-17 ( +2 / -19 )

Trump, Bannon, and his idiot squad are about to see: America will not become a fascist state so easily. We will fight relentlessly to preserve our democratic institutions and our rights.

Those of us who are not americans and are not in the US wish you the best of luck and support you all the way. I am half syrian myself from my father's side, and I do have paternal relatives who have both immigrated to the US and are citizens AND others who fled the war and became refugees, so this to me is very personal.

You mean the (oil-rich) Artists Formerly Known as Princes?

LOL

This man does not seem to aware that the biggest threat to the lives of American people is he, himself, and the law allowing ordinary citizens to own guns.

exactly. Its absolutely absurd that Trump thinks refugees fleeing a conflict are a threat, yet allowing every yeehawdi who wants to own an automatic weapon...that's ok. Go figure.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

America will not become a fascist state so easily. We will fight relentlessly to preserve our democratic institutions and our rights.

So the briefs are not even arguing the law anymore, they are arguing that Trump is mean? If this is causing irreversible harm to the economy of Washington shall we get rid of Microsoft first or their foreign workers.?

97 Tech Companies Including Twitter, Netflix File Legal Brief Condemning Trump's Immigration Order

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-02-06/97-tech-companies-including-twitter-netflix-file-legal-brief-condemning-trumps-immig

"The Order represents a significant departure from the principles of fairness and predictability that have governed the immigration system of the United States for more than fifty years," the brief stated. "The Order inflicts significant harm on American business, innovation, and growth as a result," it added.

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

Look folks - mainly Americans, I think - it's "couldn't care less", not "could care less". See how it makes more sense that way. I couldn't care less about something means there is no less I could care about that something. "I could care less" could easily imply that I think highly of something.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

Some questions for bass4funk:

-- How many Americans have been killed by refugees from these 7 countries?

-- Up to now, how have refugees been vetted?

-- What do you think of the "Bowling Green Massacre"?

-- What do you think about the fact that radical Islamic terrorist groups have already stated that they are happy about Trump's ban, for it will help in recruiting? And how do you think that will save American lives?

-- Do you think that former CIA director Michael Hayden is a liberal democrat who "cares less" about letting terrorists into the country? Since you said that libs and Dems "NEVER listen", do you think Trump should listen to Hayden's opinion on this ban?

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Hopefully the string of legal defeats will continue for Trump and the xenophobes. They cant possibly get away with banning every Muslim from entering the United States.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Two points:

First, it's about time this dichotomy in congressional legislation is adjudicated. A 1952 statute - passed during the coldest days of the cold war - does give the president unfettered ability to deny non-Americans, even sweepingly; a 1965 statute seems to constrain this by requiring vetting to be individual and prohibits sweeping criteria - the very type Trump has used. The 9th Court will likely see that the latter law supersedes the former and uphold the stay. A writer at the Cato Institute has an excellent analysis: https://www.cato.org/blog/trumps-presidential-ban-immigration-certain-countries-illegal

Second, Trump has done himself no favor by attacking the judicial branch. His petulance and extremely inadvisable Tweets now frames a ruling favoring the executive branch as capitulation, while one opposed as defiance. Legal types abhor personalizing arguments, but Trump has characteristically unbolted the barn door and it's too late to corral those horses he's unleashed. This will likely work against any latent sympathy judges have to defer to elective prerogative.

So Trump has shot himself in the foot twice now: by the utterly incompetent way in which his order was conceived, drafted, and executed; and by framing legal challenges as a titanic struggle between different government branches rather than a simple legal issue. The latter could get him in trouble as it encroaches on impeachable issues - and for what? Two weeks into the Trump presidency and it's already consuming itself. I for one would love tomsee him draw this out - it would be at the expense of all other legislation.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

The biggest question I have is denying people legitimate VISA that had been issued by the US State department can be denied entry to the US which had originally given access?

Unless there is a blanket waiver written within the VISA stating the the US has the authority to deny entry without prior notice or explanation to the reason of denial then the US government by law is require to provide entry.

You can flag an individual on suspicions of illegal acts but a whole group based on their nation of origin would not hold water in a court of law.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

plasticmonkeyFEB. 07, 2017 - 09:50AM JST

Some questions for bass4funk:

One more. Would such a travel ban, applying to the countries that it does, have stopped the 9/11 attackers?

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Its absolutely absurd that Trump thinks refugees fleeing a conflict are a threat, yet allowing every yeehawdi who wants to own an automatic weapon...that's ok. Go figure.

Trump doesn't think ALL refugees are a threat. But some may be. ISIS has made no secrete that it is infiltrating the West via the refugee tsunami. There are 200 countries in the world and dozens of other Muslim countries right next door to Syria. Why does America need to accommodate refugees in a foreign culture that they have no voluntary desire to integrate into. Surely Turkey, Iran, or some other nation in the region can more easily integrate them into their culture than the US or Europe. Don't see why that isn't an ideal destination for the refugees.

As for all those "yeehawdi" who want guns - it isn't up to Trump to say what the basic rights are of these "deplorables" are. The Constitution specifies that right in black and white. For that to change, the American people have to agree to amend the Constitution first.

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

the threat to the sovereignty of the US

How is sovereignty threatened by a handful of people?

Neither truthful hyperbole nor alternative facts, just verbal diarrhoea.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

Trump doesn't think ALL refugees are a threat. But some may be.

Well not all white christian gun owners shoot up schools and malls. But some may. So lets not let any white christians in either. That's especially relevant since the quebec shooting.

ISIS has made no secrete that it is infiltrating the West via the refugee tsunami.

Agree 100%. And do you know why? Because like the anti refugee crowd, they want the muslims out of the West so that they have NO CHOICE but to return to syria, become radicalized, and join IS. So by not letting them in, you're doing IS's work for them. Good job.

Why does America need to accommodate refugees in a foreign culture that they have no voluntary desire to integrate into

Who told you they don't want to integrate? I have syrian family who have moved to the states. They've integrated fine. The ones that don't want to integrate by and large have moved to Raqqa and Mosul.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

they have no voluntary desire to integrate

I wonder, how many of the but they don't want to integrate complainers are actually integrated here in Japan ? Apart from learning the language and cooking Japanese food maybe once or twice a week, I do my own Western lifestyle thing and it doesn't seem to offend or upset anyone in Japan.

Are Japanese more tolerant than Westerners?

5 ( +6 / -1 )

@plastic

http://www.unitedagainstnucleariran.com/terrorism

Since the Iran Hostage Crisis in 1979, one of the defining hallmarks of the Iranian regime has been its habitual use of terrorism against the United States and its allies throughout the world and its ties to terrorist organizations. In addition to carrying out direct attacks, Iran has committed terrorism by proxy through Hezbollah, Hamas, the Taliban, militias in Iraq, and a plethora of other terrorist groups. Iran has a long history of terrorist attacks against the U.S. and Israel, mainly through bombings, abductions, and hijackings. Iranian dissidents and opposition leaders living in exile have also been subject to assassination. The U.S. government noted that in 2012 there was “a marked resurgence of Iran’s state sponsorship of terrorism,” with Iran and Hezbollah’s terrorist activity reaching “a tempo unseen since the 1990s.”

Too many to list. As I see it, why take a chance?

Up to now, how have refugees been vetted?

IMHO not nearly enough.

What do you think of the "Bowling Green

Irrelevant.

What do you think about the fact that radical Islamic terrorist groups have already stated that they are happy about Trump's ban, for it will help in recruiting? And how do you think that will save American lives?

I think that's a BS argument since radical Islam hates the West and Israel so much, it wouldn't matter if a weak Obama was apologetic and a strong Trump that's not going to take any crap from the Mullahs, either way, we are infidels and they would like nothing more than to eradicate us all.

Do you think that former CIA director Michael Hayden is a liberal democrat who "cares less" about letting terrorists into the country?

I don't think he cares enough.

Since you said that libs and Dems "NEVER listen", do you think Trump should listen to Hayden's opinion on this ban?

No.

-9 ( +1 / -10 )

"travelers arrive to tears"

That's nice. At least these are real tears, as opposed to those fake tears coming out of Chuck Schumer's eyes.

I just hope there won't be any U.S. citizens crying over the loss of loved ones due to violence by nasty people who come in among the refugees. And really, is there no other country these people could go to while this temporary travel restriction is in place while we work on improving the vetting process? Nah...

Oh my...

Judge Napolitano's take on the travel ban legal battle:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXzZYcGHcDk

Judge Napolitano is correct, and Judge Robart is wrong.

-7 ( +1 / -8 )

One more. Would such a travel ban, applying to the countries that it does, have stopped the 9/11 attackers?

No, but "Bill Clinton" could've in 1998 by making the decision to kill OBL.

-7 ( +1 / -8 )

bass4funk: "Irrelevant."

Oh, so now the made up Bowling Green massacre is suddenly irrelevant, is it, when it was (and still is) being cited to defend the ban? hahaha. It is VERY relevant, as it is shows how unjustified the ban is.

And I'm still chuckling about your "trump doesn't care about the polls" and "only libs care about who likes them" comments because this morning Trump literally said that polls that don't favor him are "FAKE NEWS" and was fuming over the fact that he is the most hated president in history. Now Goldman Sachs and the business district are finally starting to realize Trump will be a detriment, so his days are numbered.

Deny it all you want, Trump is very angry and upset that he has much lower approval ratings than all others, and especially Obama. I think he's still pretty mad he lost the popular vote, too.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

Up to now, how have refugees been vetted? - IMHO not nearly enough.

The question was how, not how many. I doubt you'd be able to answer either though. Your boy really isn't smart enough for this job I'm afraid. He has no idea how to build a consensus. Two weeks in and he's already made a plethora of enemies who'll take great pleasure in obstructing his entire term. He's the brat who always wants to bat first, and the rest of the kids will soon stop playing with him.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

@wolfp Why does America need to accommodate refugees in a foreign culture that they have no voluntary desire to integrate into.

This is an example of a point I've been trying to make, which is in the US the most anti-American of the many anti-American groups are rightists. Where in the Constitution does it say anyone has to integrate?

Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free

Something about freedom, something rightists seem to have forgotten.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

"Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free

Something about freedom, something rightists seem to have forgotten."

Yeah, Pete, that was before we had terrorists running all around the place and we didn't have a $20 trillion national debt.

Trump wants to make us safe, liberals don't. And Democrats wonder why he won.

Oh my...

Entry to US is not a right for non-citizens:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8zpqA7FsM9c&t=1s

-10 ( +0 / -10 )

@serra And Democrats wonder why he won.

No, it's pretty clear that with the Electoral College a president can be elected by a minority of voters. People are aware he won even though he received fewer votes.

Trump wants to make us safe, liberals don't.

Must be odd living in a world that's only black and white, but it could be you've never met a 'liberal'. All American liberals I've ever met think safety is critical. Life outside a bubble really is pretty interesting; there are lots of colors to be seen - if you're willing to open your eyes. And you don't even need a gun to feel safe! At least I don't.

Maybe you should put a bit more trust in law enforcement and your government. I know rightists, and Russians too, say American institutions are bad, but personally I think by undermining American institutions Trump and his followers are making America and the world less safe.

8 ( +8 / -0 )

Up to now, how have refugees been vetted?

IMHO not nearly enough.

I suspect you have no idea how they have been vetted.

a strong Trump that's not going to take any crap from the Mullahs,

Just cowboy talk. What does that even mean?

either way, we are infidels and they would like nothing more than to eradicate us all.

Who are they? If you mean ISIS, you are correct. But I was talking about the potential for ISIS to use Trump's action as a persuasive tool to recruit Muslims who would not necessarily otherwise become radicalized. You are confusing ISIS with all Muslims. As is Trump. This is a dangerous road to take, and I think it's being followed less out of logical security concerns than out of a desire to feel and act tough. And of course unite the faithful against a clearly identifiable "other".

7 ( +8 / -1 )

Plenty of Arabs have integrated into US life. Take Mia Khalifa for example.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

I believe they got around that by revoking the visas. Without a visa they are able to stop entry. Obviously it goes against the spirit of the law to do that but...

5 ( +5 / -0 )

Meanwhile on Planet Denial, where evil is only done by others, and always in a vacuum:

Since the Iran Hostage Crisis in 1979

The Iranian Revolution of that year has nothing whatsoever to do with the CIA/MI6 overthrow and replacement of Iran's democratic government with a puppet Shah.

Too many to list. As I see it, why take a chance?

But let's arm White Daesh and deny any link.

Exactly what are you pretending to not understand, Bass?

3 ( +3 / -0 )

You can flag an individual on suspicions of illegal acts but a whole group based on their nation of origin would not hold water in a court of law.

Are you an immigration lawyer ?

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/article/2613988?platform=hootsuite

Quoting cases from 2016 and 1977, the Justice Department argued that, specifically in the context of immigration, "the Supreme Court has 'long recognized the power to expel or exclude aliens as a fundamental sovereign attribute exercised by the government's political departments largely immune from judicial control.'" "When Congress delegates this plenary power to the executive, the executive's decisions are likewise generally shielded from administrative or judicial review."

The president absolutely has the right to deny the entrants of any country to ensure the "proper review and maximum utilization of available resources for the screening of foreign nationals" and "that adequate standards are established to prevent infiltration by foreign terrorists."

-7 ( +0 / -7 )

Are you an immigration lawyer ?

Are you?

4 ( +4 / -0 )

@Lizz, the important words to look for in your quotes are, 'largely immune' and 'generally shielded'. That suggests to me that Trump does not 'absolutely' have the right. But unlike you I'm not a hotshot immigration lawyer so I could be wrong

3 ( +3 / -0 )

The Presidential powers still have Constitutional limitations even in the face of extraordinary circumstances.

For instance, when Pres. Lincoln himself suspended habeas corpus (petition for wrongful imprisonment), the Courts ruled him unconstitutional - and that was during a Civil War. So just because Lincoln did it to help preserve the Union which itself was a noble goal, doesn't mean it didn't violate the Constitution. So still have to abide by the Constitution even during extraordinary circumstances - and it's the courts' duty to determine that

3 ( +3 / -0 )

"When Congress delegates this plenary power to the executive, the executive's decisions are likewise generally shielded from administrative or judicial review."

Good point, Lizz! - just the one I made above! Let's look at the relevant statue here, the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, which is now 8 U.S. Code 1152:

No person shall receive any preference or priority or be discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person’s race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence.

This is the power that congress has delegated to the president. Seems to me that prohibiting all movement between the US and seven countries - all seemingly randomly chosen in that none have any history of terrorist activities in the US (though all, coincidentally or not, are predominantly Islamic) - violates the power congress has allowed and thus is subject to judicial review. Thanks for that!

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Lizz

The case quoted is I presume about immigrants that are feet wet or people who had never entered the US. The present executive order goes beyond to people that had already entered the US before and paid federal and state tax. Those people should be covered by the US constitution. What was the motto, "No taxation without representation?"

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Oh, so now the made up Bowling Green massacre is suddenly irrelevant, is it, when it was (and still is) being cited to defend the ban? hahaha. It is VERY relevant, as it is shows how unjustified the ban is.

I'm sorry, but how is it unjustified? Because liberals hate borders?

And I'm still chuckling about your "trump doesn't care about the polls" and "only libs care about who likes them" comments because this morning Trump literally said that polls that don't favor him are "FAKE NEWS" and was fuming over the fact that he is the most hated president in history. Now Goldman Sachs and the business district are finally starting to realize Trump will be a detriment, so his days are numbered.

Trump shouldn't trust the media for one thing when SNL makes fun of his kid, imagine if they did that to Obama's kids..... From the start to the finish, the pollsters were way off, the media was off, the cable news polls were off and so much garbage that was revealed from Wikileaks, Trump has EVERY reason to be suspicious of the media and the polls, don't blame him one bit and for the most part as I have said over and over again, you guys on the left care what Hollyweird and the polls and worry about star status and being liked and being popular, we don't.

Deny it all you want, Trump is very angry and upset that he has much lower approval ratings than all others, and especially Obama. I think he's still pretty mad he lost the popular vote, too.

Trump is angry at the media and their outrageous lies, oh, I'll give you that. But he has 4 years to go at the very minimum, so as long as he can keep his promises, all will be forgiven and he should do another 4, so let's see what happens, you guys were wrong once...twice....ok, so many times....

I suspect you have no idea how they have been vetted.

I suspect the same from you, however, looking over the procedures and protocols of how the last admin. have done their vetting process seems like to have been a complete joke, even Israel thinks how the last admin conducted their vetting process was inadequate, not to mention senseless.

Just cowboy talk. What does that even mean?

You come into my house, I'll have a big surprise from you, you in, but you'll leave with a toe tag, translation.

But I was talking about the potential for ISIS to use Trump's action as a persuasive tool to recruit Muslims who would not necessarily otherwise become radicalized.

Not buying it for a minute, it's all an excuse, whether it was Bush going into Iraq and removing Saddam or Obama and his indiscriminate drone strikes or his war in Afghanistan, Trump's ban is not going to make that much of a difference. Sorry, but that sounds like more desperation talk coming from the left.

You are confusing ISIS with all Muslims.

No, not at all. You are confusing vetting from countries that have very strong ties to radical Islam and sponsored so many of their proxies across the globe and yes, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan should be included in that ban.

Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free

Something about freedom, something rightists seem to have forgotten.

So now all of a sudden, the left are concerned about Christian values?? ROFL!!

-9 ( +0 / -9 )

America is overrated anyway, I won't be going back.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

so now the made up Bowling Green massacre is suddenly irrelevant, is it, when it was (and still is) being cited to defend the ban?

I'm sorry, but how is it unjustified?

Hahahahahhahahhahahahahahahahaha.

Wow, you don't even realize. I'll tell you what, you google 'Bowling Green Massacre', and show us the news articles describing exactly what happened at the 'massacre'.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Wow, you don't even realize.

Uh-hu....Yeah, I did, but how is it relevant?

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

how is it relevant?

How is what relevant to what?

0 ( +2 / -2 )

@bass Because liberals hate borders?

People in the media should be aware that statements like this don't do much to enhance a writer's credibility and perceived acuity.

Trump is angry at the media

Because some in the media want him to tell the truth, and when some in the media (you have to exclude the Murdoch and Putin media outlets, Breitbart, the alt right media and some in the corporate media) don't report that his alt facts and fake news are truthful he gets angry and throws a tantrum. Like he has done all his life. It's a bit concerning that a 70+ year old man representing a nation acts like this.

He's not a dictator able to control the media - yet.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

It all comes down to fear. The end.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Probably a big mistake because now isis will be trying to get as many people as they can into the country. Something big will happen and now they've given trump a huge i told you so.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

People in the media should be aware that statements like this don't do much to enhance a writer's credibility and perceived acuity.

Says whom?

Because some in the media want him to tell the truth,

But the media gets a pass at telling the truth?

and when some in the media (you have to exclude the Murdoch and Putin media outlets, Breitbart, the alt right media and some in the corporate media) don't report that his alt facts and fake news are truthful he gets angry and throws a tantrum.

For example?

Like he has done all his life. It's a bit concerning that a 70+ year old man representing a nation acts like this.

Thank God, we didn't get Hillary then, phheeeeew!

He's not a dictator able to control the media - yet.

When you see the camps, the ovens and patches on people's sleeve, then you can call him a dictator.

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

bass

You come into my house, I'll have a big surprise from you, you in, but you'll leave with a toe tag, translation.

Like I said, cowboy talk, and inarticulate at that. How will Trump's schoolyard swagger differentiate himself from previous presidents? Anti-terrorism is anti-terrorism. It mostly carries through from administration to administration. Professionals do their jobs. Trump tweets, rants, and gets zealous amateurs like Steve "Vladimir" Bannon and angry-young-man Stephen Miller to draft executive orders because Trump knows he doesn't understand policy, context, history, law, etc., and it throws everything into disarray. He's a charlatan in over his head.

And then you get amoral sycophants like Pence, Priebus, Ryan, Conway, and Sphincter scrambling to hold it together.

When you see the camps, the ovens and patches on people's sleeve, then you can call him a dictator.

No, I'd rather not wait for that. Let's stop him before he reaches that point.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

"Something about freedom, something rightists seem to have forgotten."

"So now all of a sudden, the left are concerned about Christian values?? ROFL!!"

They are secular values. They are democratic values.

You initially wanted a theocrat to win the election and then jumped to someone with only a passing knowledge of democracy.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

This is the power that congress has delegated to the president. Seems to me that prohibiting all movement between the US and seven countries - all seemingly randomly chosen in that none have any history of terrorist activities in the US (though all, coincidentally or not, are predominantly Islamic) -

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/article/2613988?platform=hootsuite

Because we aren't talking about the issuance of visas. And the countries were obviously not chosen at random.

Washington State also argued that the president's authority under the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952 to deny entry to "any aliens or any class of aliens" was later limited by a 1965 amendment that "prohibits discrimination in the issuance of immigrant visas on the basis of race, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence." The Trump order, Washington State lawyers argued, along with intent revealed in statements made by candidate Trump during the 2016 campaign, are discriminatory and violate the amended immigration act.

Not so, argued the Justice Department. "This restriction does not address the president's authority…to 'suspend the entry' of aliens, which is an entirely different act under the immigration laws," the Department argued. "An immigrant visa does not entitle an alien to admission to the United States, and even if an alien is issued a valid visa, he is subject to being denied admission to this country when he arrives at the border."

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

Like I said, cowboy talk, and inarticulate at that.

So if you are an articulate person, it's going to protect you from bullets, home invasion, knives, terrorist attacks, someone on a mission? Wile E. Coyote was a genius and still couldn't catch that Road Runner!

How will Trump's schoolyard swagger differentiate himself from previous presidents?

Easy, Putin would have never gone into Crimea, China would have never carved out the pacific ocean, Iran would have never had a one-sided deal or any deal had Bush been president or even Trump, even if the left think their little buddy, buddy conspiracy wonder thoughts. Obama was a pushover and all of our adversaries loved it.

Anti-terrorism is anti-terrorism. It mostly carries through from administration to administration.

Yeah, but I have yet to see a liberal that has the mustard to stand up to our adversaries.

Professionals do their jobs.

Then let Trump do his job.

Trump knows he doesn't understand policy, context, history, law, etc., and it throws everything into disarray. He's a charlatan in over his head.

Obama didn't understand none of that as well and he still made it through, so give hope a chance.

And then you get amoral sycophants like Pence, Priebus, Ryan, Conway, and Specter scrambling to hold it together.

Is that what liberals think? ROFLMAO

They are secular values. They are democratic values.

I choked when I read that. Dear lord, who told you that???? ROFL

-8 ( +0 / -8 )

Easy, Putin would have never gone into Crimea, China would have never carved out the pacific ocean, Iran would have never had a one-sided deal or any deal had Bush been president or even Trump, even if the left think their little buddy, buddy conspiracy wonder thoughts.

All of those things would have happened under Trump.

Yeah, but I have yet to see a liberal that has the mustard to stand up to our adversaries.

I bet Bin Laden would agree. Or maybe not. Why don't you ask him.

Then let Trump do his job.

Like how you let Obama do his job?

0 ( +3 / -3 )

"They are secular values. They are democratic values."

"I choked when I read that. Dear lord, who told you that???? ROFL"

I read books rather than watch Fox News or listen to lunatics like Ben Carson. The secular values of the founding fathers of your country created freedom of and freedom from religion. A secular democracy which allows you to practice whatever religion you want. That's why your idea of banning people based on their religion flies in the face of one of the freedoms your country was based on. These are secular, not Christian ideas.

Read your constitution.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

When you see the camps, the ovens and patches on people's sleeve, then you can call him a dictator.

This is rich coming from someone who constantly called President Obama a "dictator" over the past several years.

Pot, meet the kettle.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Yeah, but I have yet to see a liberal that has the mustard to stand up to our adversaries.

Nonsense.

Trump is the president who will pass the mustard to our Christian-Judea tenants?

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Nonsense.

What the truth about liberals?

Trump is the president who will pass the mustard to our Christian-Judea tenants?

Pretty much.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites