-->
@Best.Korea
Bite me.
STEEL-MAN FOR JOE BIDEN
Posts
Total:
96
-->
@3RU7AL
everyone knows that trump tried to implement a muslim ban
"Everyone "is a hyperbolic word and marks you as a bad faith debater.
-->
@Greyparrot
This list reveals the concept’s evolution. After defending the outright Muslim ban for six months, Trump called Rudy Giuliani in early May 2016 [1] to, as Trump himself put it, “look at the Muslim ban.” Giuliani explained that Trump told him, “Show me the right way to do it legally.” This indicates that Trump wanted Giuliani to come up with a version of the Muslim ban that would satisfy legal concerns. (Note that at this point, there is no other proposal for the “it” to be, Trump confirmed that he used the phrase “Muslim ban,” and grammatically, the antecedent to “it” is “Muslim ban” in Giuliani’s comments.) With these marching orders, Giuliani and House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Michael McCaul—with help from former Attorney General Michael Mukasey and Rep. Peter King—then sent a memo to the Trump team that explained why the outright ban could be unconstitutional and urged the adoption of a territorial-based ban.
-->
@3RU7AL
Cato's sources are unavailable, marking that site as a bad faith debater.
That is CATO's source.
-->
@Greyparrot
19 second sky-news clip of trump saying the wants to ban all muslims
-->
@3RU7AL
No. he wasn't. He was reading an article someone else wrote about him. He starts out with "TRUMP SAID."
Show me the full context, and I am 99% sure Trump was arguing against the bad faith hearsay characterization so commonly used against him.
If you find a clip with "I" in it, that would be good faith.
-->
@Greyparrot
-->
@3RU7AL
paywalled source. Can you cut and paste where Trump said "I want a muslim ban"
-->
@Greyparrot
A written statement from the Trump campaign says: "Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on."
-->
@3RU7AL
"The Trump Campaign" isn't a source. Show me a source where Trump the man wanted a Muslim ban.
You have never said "his campaign wanted it" you claimed THE MAN wanted it.
I have yet to see a source where Trump himself AS PRESIDENT said he wanted to ban all Muslims.
-->
@Greyparrot
paywalled source.
By Amy B Wang
January 29, 2017 at 3:32 p.m. EST
Former New York mayor Rudy W. Giuliani said President Trump wanted a “Muslim ban” and requested he assemble a commission to show him “the right way to do it legally.”
Giuliani, an early Trump supporter who once had been rumored for a Cabinet position in the new administration, appeared on Fox News late Saturday night to describe how Trump's executive order temporarily banning refugees came together.
Trump signed orders on Friday not only to suspend admission of all refugees into the United States for 120 days but also to implement “new vetting measures” to screen out “radical Islamic terrorists.” Refugee entry from Syria, however, would be suspended indefinitely, and all travel from Syria and six other nations — Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen — is suspended for 90 days. Trump also said he would give priority to Christian refugees over those of other religions, according to the Christian Broadcasting Network.
Fox News host Jeanine Pirro asked Giuliani whether the ban had anything to do with religion.
🏛️
“How did the president decide the seven countries?” she asked. “Okay, talk to me.”
“I'll tell you the whole history of it,” Giuliani responded eagerly. “So when [Trump] first announced it, he said, 'Muslim ban.' He called me up. He said, 'Put a commission together. Show me the right way to do it legally.' "
Giuliani said he assembled a “whole group of other very expert lawyers on this,” including former U.S. attorney general Michael Mukasey, Rep. Mike McCaul (R-Tex.) and Rep. Peter T. King (R-N.Y.).
“And what we did was, we focused on, instead of religion, danger — the areas of the world that create danger for us,” Giuliani told Pirro. “Which is a factual basis, not a religious basis. Perfectly legal, perfectly sensible. And that's what the ban is based on. It's not based on religion. It's based on places where there are substantial evidence that people are sending terrorists into our country.”
-->
@3RU7AL
Sounds like Trump as President learned the difference between violent Muslims and regular Muslims. I approve that source. A violent and dangerous Muslim ban makes sense. A Muslim ban doesn't.
-->
@Greyparrot
Sounds like Trump as President learned the difference between violent Muslims and regular Muslims. I approve that source. A violent and dangerous Muslim ban makes sense. A Muslim ban doesn't.
in other words
if it was legal to ban all muslims
then he would have simply banned all muslims
-->
@3RU7AL
It's legal for a President to ask someone how to solve a violent Muslim problem.
-->
@Greyparrot
It's legal for a President to ask someone how to solve a violent Muslim problem.
i never said it was "good" or "bad"
-->
@3RU7AL
60
It was "Executive Order 13769....Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States".
Also the ban only impacted 0.02% of all Muslims ( 37 thousand out of 1.8 billion) as cited above.
-->
@prefix
“I'll tell you the whole history of it,” Giuliani responded eagerly. “So when [Trump] first announced it, he said, 'Muslim ban.' He called me up. He said, 'Put a commission together. Show me the right way to do it legally.' "
-->
@3RU7AL
the ban only impacted 0.02% of all Muslims ( 37 thousand out of 1.8 billion) as cited above.
In other words 99.98% of Muslims were not affected.
For the mentally impaired .....99.98 % is greater than 0.02%. ( 9998>2)
-->
@prefix
i wonder if 99% of the people impacted by the "trump travel ban" just happened to be muslims, you know, by pure coincidence
“Everyone "is a hyperbolic word and marks you as a bad faith debater.
that’s ridiculous
-->
@3RU7AL
i wonder if 100 % of the people impacted by the "trump travel ban" just happened to be from countries with very poor standards for issuance of passports, you know, by pure coincidence.
FO
-->
@prefix
thank you for sharing your interesting perspective
i had no idea this topic was controversial
trump got loads of cheers when he said he wanted to ban muslims
i thought all trump supporters loved the idea
build a wall and all that jazz
-->
@3RU7AL
You are welcome
You said "i had no idea this topic was controversial" . Maybe that was because you drank some kool aide.
Perhaps you have learned to look beyond the poorly informed sources and go to the point where it all began.
I never argued that Trump wanted to ban Muslims, and that was never the topic. You tried to make it about that, but it never was.
Here is a good bit of info:
"Supreme Court Upholds Trump's Travel Ban : NPR. Supreme Court Upholds Trump's Travel Ban By a 5-4 vote, the court reversed a series of lower court decisions and said a rule banning nearly all travelers from five mainly Muslim countries was within the president's authority."
You should read the entire article, which includes comments from SCOTUS.
-->
@prefix
I never argued that Trump wanted to ban Muslims
i see, ok
so you agree that trump initially wanted to ban muslims
but was told that is basically impossible
so they did the next best thing
which is to "temporarily" ban travel from muslim majority countries
-->
@3RU7AL
so they did the next best thing
which is to "temporarily" ban travel from muslim majority countries
See above 9998>2
i wonder if 100 % of the people impacted by the "trump travel ban" just happened to be from countries with very poor standards for issuance of passports, you know, by pure coincidence.
Just read "Trump travel ban" in Wiki, before you say anything else.
You might understand ....Oh never mind.
-->
@prefix
i see, ok
so you agree that trump initially wanted to ban muslims
-->
@3RU7AL
I cannot agree to the motive of another, just as you cannot.
Even if a person says something, one cannot ascribe absolute validity to one's own conclusion about that statement.
If you look up what Trump said and when he said it, you might be surprised.
i wonder if 100 % of the people impacted by the "trump travel ban" just happened to be from countries with very poor standards for issuance of passports, you know, by pure coincidence.
There was no ban on people from Indonesia, and that country has the largest Muslim population in the world.
Now demonstrate to me that you " read "Trump travel ban" in Wik" before you say anything else.
-->
@prefix
Even if a person says something, one cannot ascribe absolute validity to one's own conclusion about that statement.
you've just invalidated every statement trump has ever made
-->
@3RU7AL
I said ..."Even if a person says something, one cannot ascribe absolute validity to one's own conclusion about that statement."
you've just invalidated every statement trump has ever made
No. I have just invalidated everything you have said. You can assume anything you want, but it is just that ....AN ASSUMPTION. You need to find other sources to backup your assumption.
You seem to have below par reading comprehension. I clearly was speaking of your assumption about what you heard.
Example.
You called the "Trump Travel Ban" the "Trump Muslim Ban". You ASSUMED that since you had hearsay evidence your OPINION even though FALSE was correct.
A quick review of historical texts shows your opinion to be less correct; maybe a few beers short of a six pack.
-->
@3RU7AL
You said in #1...
"(IFF) you believe these are pro-toto good government policies (THEN) you should cast your vote for joe biden"
By all means.... go to the polls in November and vote for Biden AND NO ONE ELSE. We will all be better off.