Fox News, Joining The Liberal Fake News...

[Fargo]

I am kinda curious why the quibbling about that EO versus the one about confiscating legally purchased firearms/accessories?

If we are talking about "enemies" of the Second Amendment, why are we going to ignore that one?

 

[jbombelli]

I highlighted it all. It took several minutes to post after freezing...must have hit a cut/paste size limit. Looked it all over and still don't see 212(f) as it is posted here.

https://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-29/0-0-0-2006/0-0-0-2364.html


It says 212(b) at the top of the page, but every reference I've found elsewhere, including executive orders and DOJ rule making, quotes it as 212(f).

The link posted by CampingJosh goes to page 1. Scroll down to where it has a link that says 212, click that. I think that's the page you copy/pasted. Wrong page. Scroll down to where it says "next document". Click that. Scroll down, it's near the bottom. Or search that third page for the word "president".

Or click my link above to go right to that page.

I copy/pasted this off that page just now...

(f) Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.

I don't know what else I can say. Though I would appreciate not being called a liar and being accused of making things up when I'm neither lying nor making things up.

 

[CampingJosh]

I tend to ignore posts that are categorically false. That's not at all what the referenced section says. I didn't find anywhere else that said such a thing either. Check it yourself, though: https://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/act.html

Though I would appreciate not being called a liar and being accused of making things up when I'm neither lying nor making things up.

jbombelli;

I was wrong, and I apologize. You did quote the text correctly.

The citation was difficult to follow, and making up paragraphs and citing them as law is a tactic of trolls. I'm also sorry that I assumed that of you.

 

[CampingJosh]

OK, back on topic.

Trump's E.O. claims the power to shut down asylum in a way not prescribed by Congress. That's him dictating new law. That's the behavior that is unacceptable. The Immigration and Naturalization Act does clearly allow him to close the border. But that's only half of what he's tried to do. The other half is still him way overstepping his authority.

His argument that most asylum seekers are eventually denied is not convincing; most asylum seekers haven't had their government recently overthrown in a coup backed by the US Secretary of State. (Actually, I probably need to look up statistics before feeling good about that claim...)

 

[jbombelli]

jbombelli;

I was wrong, and I apologize. You did quote the text correctly.

The citation was difficult to follow, and making up paragraphs and citing them as law is a tactic of trolls. I'm also sorry that I assumed that of you.

Good enough. And in fairness, the guy who designed that site should be flogged. It's awful.

 

[bwframe]

A lot of FNC anchors cannot stand the president. Like some of our own INGO nevertrumpers, they push their narative to the point of siding with the enemy.

They want to eliminate the Second Amendment, so there would be no means of America fighting back a tyrannical government. Why would you refer to them as anything else?

This is why politics is broken in the US.

The dem platform has become totally anti-2A. Dems ARE the enemy of gun owners. It's that simple. Back the dems, you are backing the enemy.

There are plenty of reasons that the dems are the enemy to conservatives. All are secondary to the Second Amendment fight.

Without the 2A, the rest of the constitution does not matter. I'm sure this is not the first time you folks have heard that...



.

 

[CampingJosh]

The dem platform has become totally anti-2A. Dems ARE the enemy of gun owners. It's that simple. Back the dems, you are backing the enemy.

There are plenty of reasons that the dems are the enemy to conservatives. All are secondary to the Second Amendment fight.

Without the 2A, the rest of the constitution does not matter. I'm sure this is not the first time you folks have heard that...

With our current "conservative" president, the rest of the Constitution doesn't matter, either.

I'm not defending any Democrats. I am saying that this if you're not with us you're against us mentality that's become so common is bad, because neither major party respects the liberty of the people.

 

[bwframe]

..I am saying that this if you're not with us you're against us mentality that's become so common is bad, because neither major party respects the liberty of the people.

Pretty simple for those of us who put the 2A first and understand it's importance.

 

[CampingJosh]

Pretty simple for those of us who put the 2A first and understand it's importance.

I understand the importance of the second amendment. I don't trust any politician to actually put any civil liberties ahead of their own power.

And on this issue, Trump is just like all the other politicians.

 

[jamil]

OK, back on topic.

Trump's E.O. claims the power to shut down asylum in a way not prescribed by Congress. That's him dictating new law. That's the behavior that is unacceptable. The Immigration and Naturalization Act does clearly allow him to close the border. But that's only half of what he's tried to do. The other half is still him way overstepping his authority.

His argument that most asylum seekers are eventually denied is not convincing; most asylum seekers haven't had their government recently overthrown in a coup backed by the US Secretary of State. (Actually, I probably need to look up statistics before feeling good about that claim...)

He’ll be challenged in court. Likely it’ll be filed in the 9th. Of course they’ll agree. It’ll go to the SCOTUS. If they take the case they’ll decide, probably along partisan lines.

That said, this is a special case where a very large mob of foreign nationals are encroaching upon our borders. I think the president has the power to prevent that, and unless you’re (rhetorical “you’re”) a bat**** crazy open-borders progressive it’s prudent to do. But wenshould want him to do it with the powers he has, and not in a way which overreaches his powers.

 

[jamil]

The dem platform has become totally anti-2A. Dems ARE the enemy of gun owners. It's that simple. Back the dems, you are backing the enemy.

There are plenty of reasons that the dems are the enemy to conservatives. All are secondary to the Second Amendment fight.

Without the 2A, the rest of the constitution does not matter. I'm sure this is not the first time you folks have heard that...



.

The part that is that the Democrats have been taken over by bat**** crazy ideologies hellbent on transforming America into bathsitopia. They're intent on doing it by tearing down the pillars of American culture, like innocent until proven guilty, free speech, free press, individualism, including the 2A. It's not just the 2A which I'm interested in preserving, it's all of that. I think because of all that, the Democratic party has to be torn down, and then rebuilt into a sane party which opposes the excesses of the Republican party. Democrats have lost their way, and the people who have overtaken them can't be trusted to lead, because they just want to tear what is America down, and make it bat****opia.

With our current "conservative" president, the rest of the Constitution doesn't matter, either.

I'm not defending any Democrats. I am saying that this if you're not with us you're against us mentality that's become so common is bad, because neither major party respects the liberty of the people.

That's fair. The choices right now are that or the party of bat**** crazy people who say all white people should die. How about let's not say anyone should die, especially because of their immutable characteristics? So we're stuck with the Orange god-king whom many conservatives can't bring themselves to criticize for anything. It's between the rock and the hard place. The pragmatic thing is to support the least crazy for the occasional sane thing he does, while doing everything legal to destroy the Democratic party to purge the crazy people out. Once a sane Democratic party emerges from the rubble, then work can begin on making the Republican party saner.

Pretty simple for those of us who put the 2A first and understand it's importance.

It's way bigger than just the 2A. It's existential for the people who still have their marbles.

I understand the importance of the second amendment. I don't trust any politician to actually put any civil liberties ahead of their own power.

And on this issue, Trump is just like all the other politicians.

You can't trust Democrats with power that amounts to anything. They're out there openly encouraging violence against Republicans, for crying out loud. Supporting people who believe men should be emasculated, and that white people should just die. That our borders should be open, but selectively to the people they want in, which is no better than wanting to keep people out because they're the 'wrong' kind. It's the party of Cortez now. They're unhinged. I hate to say it but we'll have to deal with some incompetent tyranny for a bit, because that's at least a fixable outcome.

Trump's presidency is a byproduct of the excesses of the leftist wet dreams brought real by the last president. Obama pushed the window too far, and when you do that, you get an amplified opposite response: Trump. Trump is the amplified mirror of Obama. But that is still a better outcome than the one that's festering.

Democrats, who now want to end free speech, innocent until proven guilty, and a whole lot of other things that protect individuals from mobs, 2A, etcetera, is not fixable once they have the power to effectively end those things. It may be too late already. I don't know. Too many people are afraid to stand up to these ideologues. What few sane democrats are left in that party are too afraid to speak against them. We'll see.

But it would make the incompetent tyranny a little more palatable if the most ardent Trumpers could at least identify when Trump goes too far. The only time I think I've seen a chink in the fanatical armor was the bombing of Syria. Getting them to be more vocal against Trump's other excesses would make his authoritarianism more fixable as it's happening. And why that's not happening enough is this us vs them team attitude. You can't criticize leader of "us", ever, because that would make you one of them. It would be a better outcome if supporters would dare to support him only when he's playing in bounds, and be appropriately critical when he veers out of bounds. And they know where the boundaries are. They were capable of identifying them with the previous president.

 

[jamil]

I am kinda curious why the quibbling about that EO versus the one about confiscating legally purchased firearms/accessories?

If we are talking about "enemies" of the Second Amendment, why are we going to ignore that one?

Maybe no one noticed? Good to know you lawyer types are reading all the lines whether charging billable hours or not.

 

[Kutnupe14]

The dem platform has become totally anti-2A. Dems ARE the enemy of gun owners. It's that simple. Back the dems, you are backing the enemy.

There are plenty of reasons that the dems are the enemy to conservatives. All are secondary to the Second Amendment fight.

Without the 2A, the rest of the constitution does not matter. I'm sure this is not the first time you folks have heard that...



.

Wait what? Dems are enemies of conservatives? That's some pretty dangerous rhetoric you're pushing there. Less even keeled people have used such to commit all types of crimes to defend themselves from their perceived "enemies."

 

[jamil]

Wait what? Dems are enemies of conservatives? That's some pretty dangerous rhetoric you're pushing there. Less even keeled people have used such to commit all types of crimes to defend themselves from their perceived "enemies."

I don't think anyone wants to commit crimes. Well, maybe a few fringes do, but that's what people on the fringe do. The Democratic party needs to be torn down and rebuilt into a viable alternative to the excesses of the Republican party. Probably nothing we can do will end the two-party system short of constitutional amendments to change how we vote. So the only way a two party system is viable is to have each party be an opposition to the excesses of the other. Right now the most dangerous party is the Democrats. They've been taken over by really crazy people who want to tear down what makes our society both functional and mostly free. They were just annoying when they were powerless. But now they're gaining positions of power. And they're threatening things like free speech and other individual rights.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I don't think anyone wants to commit crimes. Well, maybe a few fringes do, but that's what people on the fringe do. The Democratic party needs to be torn down and rebuilt into a viable alternative to the excesses of the Republican party. Probably nothing we can do will end the two-party system short of constitutional amendments to change how we vote. So the only way a two party system is viable is to have each party be an opposition to the excesses of the other. Right now the most dangerous party is the Democrats. They've been taken over by really crazy people who want to tear down what makes our society both functional and mostly free. They were just annoying when they were powerless. But now they're gaining positions of power. And they're threatening things like free speech and other individual rights.

I disagree the most dangerous party is the democrats? Well, I guess in the technical sense since the GOP doesn't really exist anymore, you're right. However, whatever that conglomerate of sycophants that follow the president are, I'd call them the most dangerous.... mainly because they're getting more and more desperate? Evidenced by what they are will to turn a blind eye to, and shrug their shoulders. It's a clock that's ticking, and with each tick the numbers fall more in line with liberal policies.... even the loony ones, than conservative. Ultimately, if the conservatives continue on this path, liberals with continue to maintain their inflexibility, and eventually, when they win out, and they WILL "win out," we will all suffer for it.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

I disagree the most dangerous party is the democrats? Well, I guess in the technical sense since the GOP doesn't really exist anymore, you're right. However, whatever that conglomerate of sycophants that follow the president are, I'd call them the most dangerous.... mainly because they're getting more and more desperate? Evidenced by what they are will to turn a blind eye to, and shrug their shoulders. It's a clock that's ticking, and with each tick the numbers fall more in line with liberal policies.... even the loony ones, than conservative. Ultimately, if the conservatives continue on this path, liberals with continue to maintain their inflexibility, and eventually, when they win out, and they WILL "win out," we will all suffer for it.

I think it's more because they (conservatives) are/were tired of having a blind eye turned toward them, or worse, being accused of being racists, mysogynists, nazis or worse simply because they want to see the constitution followed as written, they don't believe in 53 different "genders", and are tired of being portrayed as ignorant hicks by the coastal elites. You can only kick a dog for so long before he turns around and bites you. THAT is how we wound up with Trump in office.

 

[Mongo59]

Great concept Kut, the only way for a conservative to survive it to become a liberal? The gov had better start funding "free lobotomy clinics" for this to ever have a chance...

 

[Ingomike]

I disagree the most dangerous party is the democrats? Well, I guess in the technical sense since the GOP doesn't really exist anymore, you're right. However, whatever that conglomerate of sycophants that follow the president are, I'd call them the most dangerous.... mainly because they're getting more and more desperate? Evidenced by what they are will to turn a blind eye to, and shrug their shoulders. It's a clock that's ticking, and with each tick the numbers fall more in line with liberal policies.... even the loony ones, than conservative. Ultimately, if the conservatives continue on this path, liberals with continue to maintain their inflexibility, and eventually, when they win out, and they WILL "win out," we will all suffer for it.

If the GOP does not exist, neither does the donkey party. We have just witnessed the biggest shakeup in politics in our lifetimes, and it likely is not over. Republicans now are the party of, in no particular order, small business, rural, entrepreneurs, religious, middle class, union members, working people. Note, they are not the party of big business and the rich any longer. The polling data from the past two elections bears this out.

The Democrats are the party of, big business, urban, higher educated, perceived victims, super poor, super rich, environmental, PETA, abortion.

How will this shake out? No one knows and most are just WAGing if they tell you they do.

Someone mentioned when politics jumped the shark, so to speak, my analysis is it started with bringing down Nixon. From then on there was blood in the water and the opposing parties were like sharks, they have tried to bring down every president since. Then it was turned on the Supreme Court, and we have Borking as a verb. And in this acrimony there came along a technology that would upend everything, the computer. We now live in an era where politicians pick their voters rather than voters picking their politicians. How else would you get two districts right next door to one another vote 60/40 (Carson/Brooks) the opposite of the other.

Computers allow block by block districting to put all 2A supporters in one district and opposed in one district thereby creating "safe" seats. "Safe" seats allow extremism. It is sad that even the last election had only about 40 competitive house races the rest are "safe", that is just 10%. The vast majority of districts that flipped blue were the super wealthy/post graduate crowd.

It will be interesting to see where this goes...

MM

 

[Kutnupe14]

I think it's more because they (conservatives) are/were tired of having a blind eye turned toward them, or worse, being accused of being racists, mysogynists, nazis or worse simply because they want to see the constitution followed as written, they don't believe in 53 different "genders", and are tired of being portrayed as ignorant hicks by the coastal elites. You can only kick a dog for so long before he turns around and bites you. THAT is how we wound up with Trump in office.

I don't disagree with your assessment. However, I think the Trump "pushback," has largely backfired. It backfired to such a degree that those that are tolerant on the left, have joined forces with the intolerant left.... because they see Trump as the right's acceptance of intolerance.

Nowadays, people just buy into Trump, because he's a vocal anti-left voice. The things used to make GOP attractive, at least me, was an fairly solid commitment to sanity. That's gone now.
The president let rain stop him from visiting the WWI cemetery in France. He ******* skipped Veterans Day, because he was "busy"! He took Thanksgiving, to called troops and push political messages. The guys has been in office TWO years, and hasn't visited a war zone.... and people still cling to the belief that he's "pro-military." That's delusional.

But I digress, as long as Trump continues to enjoy the support he does, even in his bad actions, the longer the left will oppose him.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

I don't disagree with your assessment. However, I think the Trump "pushback," has largely backfired. It backfired to such a degree that those that are tolerant on the left, have joined forces with the intolerant left.... because they see Trump as the right's acceptance of intolerance.

Nowadays, people just buy into Trump, because he's a vocal anti-left voice. The things used to make GOP attractive, at least me, was an fairly solid commitment to sanity. That's gone now.
The president let rain stop him from visiting the WWI cemetery in France. He ******* skipped Veterans Day, because he was "busy"! He took Thanksgiving, to called troops and push political messages. The guys has been in office TWO years, and hasn't visited a war zone.... and people still cling to the belief that he's "pro-military." That's delusional.

But I digress, as long as Trump continues to enjoy the support he does, even in his bad actions, the longer the left will oppose him.

Well, as I see things, if the right is intolerant of anything, it is intolerant of intolerance. The left seems to have grabbed hold of intolerance with both hands and taken it to the extremes that groups that were formerly seen as intolerant (real Nazis and real white supremacists) could only dream of.