******Official politics thread ******

[BallzDeep]

Originally Posted by Horza [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

President Trump urged Israel to deny entry to two U.S. congresswomen, Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib, in an effort to punish domestic rivals.

Mr. Trump’s intervention was an extraordinary step to influence an allied nation and punish his political opponents at home. While Israeli officials were still deliberating the matter, he said in a Twitter post that “it would show great weakness if Israel allowed Rep. Omar and Rep. Tlaib to visit.”

I don't get it. Let me get this straight. You are probably okay with politicians telling celebrities and the likes not to visit Trump. You are okay with politicians blasting anyone who financially supports Trump. You are okay with people calling anyone you meet that is a Trump supporter a racist but....you draw the line when Trump in jest, suggests Israel shouldn't let them come in after denouncing him, calling him a racist and campaigning that Israel is evil.

I know you are a little slow but the point being....they are the exact same thing. Israel made it's own choice.

[BallzDeep]

I'd also agree with this statement.

On an intellectual and moral level, they have no duty to bring in Omar and Tlaib. On a PR level, it's a big mistake," "It's a PR blunder for them to give Omar and Tlaib what they want, which is to make the state of Israel look intolerant."

[Horza]

Keep reading the article.

By enlisting a foreign power to take action against two American citizens, let alone elected members of Congress, Mr. Trump crossed a line that other presidents have not, in effect exporting his partisan battles beyond the country’s borders. And he demonstrated the lengths that he will go to to target his domestic opponents, in this case two of the congresswomen of color he has sought to make the face of the Democratic Party heading into his re-election campaign.

[BallzDeep]

Originally Posted by Horza [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Keep reading the article.

Read it. Still not convinced. Don't see how you don't see how this opinion piece is riddled with emotional rhetoric.

By enlisting a foreign power to take action against two American citizens

Trigger words for your safe space. "Enlist, take action, foreign power, American citizens." Making a comment on twitter isn't enlisting. He said they would look weak. Similar to the rhetoric of calling someone a racist bigot meanwhile, the guy supports Ben Carson, Arsenio Hall won celebrity apprentice. From what I've seen, a racist wouldn't let anyone of color win anything(albeit you'd be hard pressed to find one). I'm sure you'd argue there is levels of racist now or his racism wouldn't evolve yet.

And he demonstrated the lengths that he will go to to target his domestic opponents, in this case two of the congresswomen of color he has sought to make the face of the Democratic Party

Complete and utter opinion. It's this persons opinion that he wants to make the congresswomen of "color" the face of the democratic party. More trigger words for your safe space - "Demonstrated the lengths, target, domestic opponents, congresswomen of color." They've already got you hooked, lined and sinker.

Here would be my example of an unbiased version of the events:

"Today, President Trump tweeted "It would show great weakness if Israel allowed Rep. Omar and Rep.Tlaib to visit. They hate Israel & all Jewish people, & there is nothing that can be said or done to change their minds. Minnesota and Michigan will have a hard time putting them back in office. They are a disgrace!" Shortly after, Israel barred Omar and Tlaib from entering Israel. There is an ongoing debate between Trump and Omar/Tlaib in regards to rhetoric, ideology and immigration."

[Wonkie]

Originally Posted by BallzDeep [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I hear ya but the very next sentence is:
The U.S. Supreme Court has held[6] that all executive orders from the president of the United States must be supported by the Constitution, whether from a clause granting specific power, or by Congress delegating such to the executive branch.

bolded, there ya go. they haven't.

[Horza]

I thought you said that it was just a joke, but here you go:

enlist: to secure the support and aid of, employ in advancing an interest, to win over

[Horza]

So many edits.

[BallzDeep]

Originally Posted by Wonkie [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

bolded, there ya go. they haven't.

You realize you and Horza both love to reference things that have a warped reality of the definition of something.

You are literally arguing for things that have very little context in reality and cherry picking them to justify your argument. Little selfish don't you think. Ignore all other literature and the fact that since the beginning of our government, Executive Orders have been used from President to President, year after year but you'd like to warp reality to call it unconstitutional based on your standards? I'd argue since no crime has been committed or conviction given out through due process, it currently within the legal scale. You'd like to ignore all that.

I thought you said that it was just a joke, but here you go:


enlist: to secure the support and aid of, employ in advancing an interest, to win over

You don't get it either. Enlist is a variable word that has alternate meanings. Hence the other definitions:
1
a
: to secure the support and aid of : employ in advancing an interest
enlist all the available resources
enlisted our help
b
: to win over : attract
trying to enlist my sympathies
2
: to engage (a person) for duty in the armed forces
intransitive verb
1
: to enroll oneself in the armed forces
will enlist for three years
2
: to participate heartily (as in a cause, drive, or crusade)

When people hear enlist, like you. You think of it as extreme example. You believe Trump called them directly and ordered them not to allow them. Trump posted a troll post, like always. Omar and Tlaib are anti-Israel. Israel is very protective about it's beliefs period. We are also allies. They probably thought fuck Omar and Tlaib, we don't like them, Trump doesn't like them, they hate us and are coming here to disapprove of us, they aren't coming.

[Horza]

No, I don't believe that. I'm also not sure that you understand how words work.

[Wonkie]

Originally Posted by BallzDeep [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You realize you and Horza both love to reference things that have a warped reality of the definition of something.

You are literally arguing for things that have very little context in reality and cherry picking them to justify your argument. Little selfish don't you think. Ignore all other literature and the fact that since the beginning of our government, Executive Orders have been used from President to President, year after year but you'd like to warp reality to call it unconstitutional based on your standards? I'd argue since no crime has been committed or conviction given out through due process, it currently within the legal scale. You'd like to ignore all that.

I'm saying unless the current Congress(116th) has granted him that authority(they haven't) his order is not Constitutional.

Impeach Donald Trump.