POLITICS & DONALD Annoying Orange MEGATHREAD

[Whackin]

world politics more like agdq is in 8 hours

[Ad Bot]

[extremely extreme]

hm truman tried to veto that act for being discriminatory. wonder why.

Regardless of what Truman did (or attempted to do), the law is the law and it's legal.

[Foxscotch]

basically, if Annoying Orange suspects muslims or immigrants from muslim countries as "subversive", he can deport them or bar them from immigrating. perfectly legal.

when u think the president has some kinda crazy ass unlimited power

[extremely extreme]

when u think the president has some kinda crazy ass unlimited power

I'm not saying he should have that power, I'm just saying that he does have that power.

[Master Matthew²]

when u think the president has some kinda crazy ass unlimited power

he does have that power.

[Mr Queeba]

this is literally the dumbest tweet I have seen come out of this man's account

He's fine with toyota having factories in Canada, England, America, japan etc but he's concerned about them building another one in Mexico.

ok mr Annoying Orange.

[Poliwhirl]

imagine blaming coal miners for donald Annoying Orange being elected

[Jairo]

Regardless of what Truman did (or attempted to do), the law is the law and it's legal.

I'm just gonna point out that law =/= just

slavery used to be law, etc. etc.

[extremely extreme]

I'm just gonna point out that law =/= just

slavery used to be law, etc. etc.

Obviously, I'm talking about the ban from a legal perspective, not a moral perspective.

[Red Spy]

banning someone based on their religion is a violation of the freedom to practice religions so that's not legal
screening refugees is our only viable option.

The Constitution doesn't talk about immigration

[otto-san]

Obviously, I'm talking about the ban from a legal perspective, not a moral perspective.

yeah, tho there's still fairly compelling grounds to litigate if someone were to actually have a case

The Constitution doesn't talk about immigration

there's judicial precedent for constitutional rights applying to supposed enemies of the state

e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boumediene_v._Bush (highly relevant to the conversation at hand)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamdi_v._Rumsfeld
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rasul_v._Bush

[extremely extreme]

e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boumediene_v._Bush (highly relevant to the conversation at hand)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamdi_v._Rumsfeld
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rasul_v._Bush

First case is about non us citizens detained by the us get habeas corpus
Second is about how the us can detain enemy combatants but if they are us citizens, they still have the right to due process
Third is about the us court system can decide if non-us citizens in gitmo were wrongfully imprisoned

I don't see how these cases relate to a muslim ban or even immigration for that matter.

[IkeTheGeneric]

It doesn't really matter anymore. If the muslim ban happens, it happens. Both sides are always going to be at an impasse, so what's the point?

[extremely extreme]

It doesn't really matter anymore. If the muslim ban happens, it happens. Both sides are always going to be at an impasse, so what's the point?

Nothing said in this thread matters but does that mean we should just stop discussing and debating?

[Foxscotch]

Nothing said in this thread matters but does that mean we should just stop discussing and debating?

I'd say so, yeah