It looks like this: Imgur: The magic of the Internet [ETA: on IE at least]
I don’t have a strong feeling about it, but just since it doesn’t seem to be visible to you, here it is.
It does really jack up the post on Tapatalk, though. The quotes don’t render correctly as links. so I get all the tags and no quote box. Not sure if anyone else has that issue.
Like I said, not a big issue for me. Just, you know, trying to be helpful.
That is the most on-point summary of Trump’s phony, ponzi-like identity I’ve seen. I’d love to know the author.
You think he ever figured out what the hell is going on?
This is what we see:
Did we note Jared Kushner’s company’s undisclosed $285 million loan from Deutsche Bank yet?
Quote:
Quote:
All of that is one big link.
And here’s how it looks for me in Tapatalk. Imgur: The magic of the Internet
So, I was wrong. I do get the quote boxes, but the link is goobed up and not clickable. Again, not sure if others get that.
Look at the second “travel ban” executive order. It already excludes the “bona fide relationship” people. The Supreme Court basically affirmed the second EO. Good for them.
Weird. I don’t see it either.
Do you guys see this with anyone else’s links or not?
Fran Lebowitz is credited with the line about a poor persons idea of a rich person. It’s looking like that might be the first line in her obituary, the way things worked out.
Where did THIS fucking moron crawl in from???
The line about a dumb man’s idea of a smart man was applied to Gingrich some years ago.
Well, for values of “basically” equivalent to “not really”:
Oh, so you reject Trump’s position that his second “travel ban” EO was a craven and misjudged “politically correct” compromise?
I see one big underlined link as well.
As I said, you apparently did not read the EO that is in contention. Here is the full text of it for you: Full Text And Analysis: President Trump's New Travel Ban Executive Order : NPR
Section 3 already allows entry to the categories of people that the Supreme Court mentioned. So the SC decision allows the EO to come into effect fully now.
I think I’ve only ever seen it with Bo’s posts. And I see it with all of his where he includes quote boxes.
And here I was feeling a little down that I don’t have Clothy to kick around anymore. Glad Okra is still derping around and Enuma is working hard to fill in as the mentally deficient Trump fellator.
Well, for values of “fully” equivalent to “partially”. You apparently didn’t read your own link carefully enough to notice that Section 3 of this revised EO (Trump’s “watered down, politically correct version”) specifies those “categories of people” as “circumstances” in which “case-by-case waivers” to the travel ban’s entry suspension “could be appropriate” (emphasis added).
This Supreme Court ruling, on the other hand, states that the travel ban outright does not apply to “foreign nationals who have a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States”. Not just that such a credible claim of a bona fide relationship might qualify them for a case-by-case waiver of the ban, as the EO allows, but that it actually exempts them from the ban.
Since all visa applications, AFAIU, are decided on a case-by-case basis, the distinction is immaterial.
Tapatalk is pretty messed up. It has some advantages, but its thread display sucks sons of electric donkey bottom biters. I often use a quote box that has the source link in the top, where it says “Originally Posted by …”, but when I just looked at one of those in Tapatalk, that line was not there at all. As an app, it is a worthwhile concept shabbily executed.
Why not?
Nonsense. The distinction between “this criterion may be used at the discretion of the authorities to waive the default banned status in your individual case” and “this criterion means that the default banned status does not apply to you” is not at all immaterial, even if applications are individually scrutinized for a whole slew of other potentially disqualifying criteria as well.
Marriage licenses, for example, are also granted on a case-by-case basis, subject to various legal criteria about consanguinuity and existing marital status etc. Does that mean there’s no difference between saying that two consenting single people who meet those criteria may be permitted to marry at the authorities’ discretion, and saying that two such people legally must be permitted to marry? Hell no it does not: that difference is anything but “immaterial”.
Jesus Fucking Christ. Did your mother have any children who weren’t born brain-dead?
The ruling says that the ban does not apply to, “foreign nationals who have a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States”.
Thus, since all visa applications are evaluated on a case by case basis, those individuals who have a credible claim (and, I assume, do not pose a threat) will not be blocked from entry.
Which is precisely material to the issued ruling. You fucking muppet.