Muslim ban is where we are now
What's next?
shareI wish. He should reinstate the original ban.
share
MovieChat Forums > Donald Trump Discussion > Muslim ban is where we are now
Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) told her supporters to harass members of the Trump administration.
“Let’s make sure we show up wherever we have to show up,” she said at a rally in Los Angeles on Saturday. “And if you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd. And you push back on them. And you tell them they’re not welcome anymore, anywhere.”
Nothing wrong with pushing out the devil's decibels. They all lie for tramp. What did JESUS say about satan?? He is the father of LIES!!!
shareDrumpf advocated violence against his opposition.
Just in case you're not following:
Violence is worse than harassment
Oh how I wish we had a "Maxine Waters ban" in place, i.e., banning total morons from speaking out in public. Who the h#ll are her constituents anyway? Are they ALL mentally ill? Or just terminally stupid? Who keeps voting for this this butt wipe with a bad wig??
shareOhhh look at this, more plutocrat idealogy coming from the Drumpf supporters. You want to ban people from saying things you disagree with in public? How much more fascist can you get?
shareHahaha, are you serious? Liberals litterally shout down public speakers that say things they disagree with so they can't be heard. When is the last time you've heard a conservative do that in real life? We aren't talking about a hypothetical ban on movie message board, I mean a real example.
shareAre you serious?
"Shouting down" is not the same as a ban. That's practicing free speech; shouting is a type of speech.
And your supreme leader banned major news outlets because he didn't like what they had to say. Now one of his illogical followers is advocating a ban on certain people's free speech, a sub group to be defined on a fascist's whim.
Nice try with your semantics, because otherwise the truth is obvious. Shouting someone down with the sole intention being to prevent someone from having their thoughts heard is an obvious attempt to suppress free speech. I don't believe for a second that you don't think that deep down, regardless of how your biased political hatred let's you try to twist the facts in your favor.
shareUmmm that's the beauty of freedom of speech. If one idiot wants to run their mouth and ten thoughtful people want to drown out the idiot's noise with their view, that's fine.
It's not freedom to listen, so no one has to listen to an idiot's rant. They can speak over and if they have the prevailing opinion they win out.
Also it's not "semantics" to point out that your supreme leader advocated violence and his followers are now whinging over people using their freedom of speech rights. Freedom of speech is constitutional, whilst violence is illegal
So sad how you deflect and avoid an obvious fact. They-are-there-to-suppress-free-speech. That's as clear as it gets. You can hide behind twisted logic, but that doesn't change the fact that those people are actively seeking to oppress those with different ideas from them. Now, look up the word facist in the dictionary and get ready for a surprise,there are remarkable similarities.
share[deleted]
I didn't deflect you added a qualifier and tried to deflect yourself.
I replied to "shouting down" and then you moved the goal posts to "sole intention..."
My original reply stands please discuss that and not your own version of what I said.
(Geez I hope the moderators don't remove this because one individual likes to play internet Sherrif cause their life is sad and empty)
Your avoiding the obvious again. Their sole intention for being there is to shout down people who think differently than them. That's directly addressing your statement. In fact, it's blatently obvious your trying to ignore the fact that when they do this, it's them attempting to hinder free speech,which has many similarities to fascism. Nice try though. FYI, not sure who is reporting you, but it isn't me.
shareNo you are making assumptions in regard to other people's motives.
Maybe they want to be heard themselves. That's why most people talk.
But in your reality people only talk to plug their ears and go "la-la-la-la-la"
You are either sadly ignorant, or intentionally obtuse because of your bias. They have admitted that shouting down speakers is their goal, to the point some colleges have had to implement rules saying protest can't infringe on a speakers ability to be heard. Sad that you are only ok with facism if it's your side. I thought everyone should have the right to free speech. It's too bad you don't feel the same.
shareThat's rich, a
disciple of supreme leader
drumpf is calling other people bias. Pot calling the kettle there
Did you just go with the "no I'm not,you are" defense? Hahahaha! I wasn't sure if you were an untalented toll or just a ignorant kid. Since you resorted to a childish reply, I'll assume it's the latter,lol. Take it easy kid, I don't talk politics with uninformed children. Go back to school and talk to me in a few years.
shareIt's not a Muslim ban, there are plenty of predominately Muslim countries that are not part of the ban. It all comes down to national security.
shareWHere are we now? We’re safer. Because people from high risk countries that are a danger to the US can’t just come in here unvetted.
Now we just need to stop wasting FBI resources on witch hunts and rigging elections and have them get back to their job of protecting the American people.
They weren't coming in here unvetted, this has been well established already. When Trump campaigned he said he would implement "extreme vetting" although he was vague as to what this would entail above and beyond current vetting measures. He has been in office for close to a year and a half now; why hasn't he unveiled these extreme vetting measures?
share[deleted]
I'm not afraid of facts which is why I pointed out in my above post that there is already vetting in place for immigrants from those countries. But beyond that Trump said he was going to implement extreme vetting (though he offered no specifics as to what this would entail over current vetting procedures). Nearly a year and a half in to his Presidency so why hasn't he implemented extreme vetting?
shareAn interesting read is "It Can't Happen Here", a semi-satirical 1935 political novel by American author Sinclair Lewis.
Jumped onto the best seller list after decades on the shelf right after Drumpf was elected
Round up all the long hairs and put them in camps
shareMore like Muslim countries that are not our allies ban. Need some political correctness here. To be fair though, Trump is even trying to cut 'legal' immigration by half. I don't think he likes immigration in general or if he does, he's very very strict about it in a merit based way.
share[deleted]