Yeah, the parts of the ban just okayed by the Court will do nothing whatsoever to protect us.
On the contrary: it’s a hand-wrapped gift from Trump to his ISIS buddies, who will find it a great boon to their recruitment efforts. And ultimately it may pay off for Trump with terrorist acts committed by people totally unaffected by the ban, but inspired by the hate it embodies–the hate it flaunts, really. The flaunting of the hate is the point.
When enough violent acts horrify enough Americans, Trump may be enabled to become President for Life (through the imposition of martial law etc. etc.) if a sufficient number of Americans are gullible, ignorant, and poorly-informed. And we know that the odds of that are pretty good.
Yup. Isn’t it amazing how the very people who co-opted the term ‘snowflake’ to mean their political opponents, and wear shirts that say “Fuck your feelings” are themselves the biggest whiny bitches with fee-fees more sensitive than a bi-polar BPD person in the middle of a nervous breakdown?
Which means that there is virtually no chance that an effective-resistance-level number of Americans will realize that *the entire reason for the ‘Muslim ban’ IS to anger Muslims and provoke them to violence.
So the fascists may be well on the way to a big win.
*In ANY population of humans, there will be a minority who are looking for a justification for doing what they want to do: to commit violence. This obvious fact is the reason that for centuries “incitement” has been considered to be a crime in and of itself under the common law. Yes, all people, including Muslim people, should resist attempts by the unscrupulous to inflame them into illegal aggressive acts. But that doesn’t absolve the unscrupulous from blame.
Trump’s ‘Muslim travel ban’ was created for the purpose of inciting violence.
Can we get something straight here? Spicer says it’s NOT a ban. OK? I don’t care if Trump says it’s a ban, Spicer says it isn’t. And they’re on the same team, for fuck’s sake.
:smack:
In another one of their no-video press conferences, Sean Spicer got into a shouting match with CNN reporter Jim Acosta, and Spicer tried to make it about Acosta wanting to grandstand for video cameras.
Certainly that must be on Steve Bannon’s mind, if not Trump’s.
I argued in a thread here in the Pit that the fact that most Americans believe Trump owns the NYC Trump Tower–he doesn’t–makes it ideal for an attack that could be seized as a power-grab opportunity. But now that Melania and Barron have moved out, the emotional appeal would be lessened.
At this point I’m guessing that any pro-ISIS American Muslims who are capable of being steered by Sessions’ true-believer FBI personnel, would be steered toward something that would be more likely to engender both ‘that could have been me’ emotions and ‘that’s a symbol of America!’ beliefs–something NASCAR or a country-music-concert by a big name, maybe.
Exactly. What a bunch of bullshit. They can’t handle the very thing they were trying to throw at everyone else, with their “snowflake” and their "“I ain’t gonna be PC” bullshit.
Well, the way I hear it, the SCOTUS will well and truly hear this case in October. To give their final answer. Then, even if Trump wins all the way, a 90 day ban that’s not a ban can start and keep Americans safe. I guess.
Not including Saudi Arabia, where the last guys to actually attack us came from. You know, to keep Americans safe. Thanks? Trump?
Well, to be fair, there was that incident up in Boston, though fortunately on a much smaller scale. Of course, neither Kyrgyzstan nor Russia are on Trump’s list, so they would’ve gotten in anyway.
And yes, I agree - until Saudi Arabia is on a list of that kind, it’s pointless.