The Trump fatigue has set in. I stopped paying attention a few weeks ago and I feel much better.

Wow, 9-0 ruling?! How did these crack reporters miss that? Ouch

@1: I think that's exactly what Steve Bannon had in mind.

We truly need a Trumpzilla / Pencezilla / RepubliKKKan ban in effect ASAP.
9-0 SCOTUS ruling. Fucking OUCH. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, where
the bloody hell are you?

Shouldn't we call it the Muslim ban?

@7: Considering how it has no affect on about 88% of the world's Muslim population, you could call it a Muslim ban, but it would not be a very accurate label.

http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/arti…

@8 It is what remains of Trump's intent to have a Muslim ban.

Trump: I'm going to ban all Muslims.

Reality: You can't.

I'm going to ban everyone from these Muslim countries.

You can't.

I'm going to ban everyone from these troublesome countries.

You can't.

I'm going to ban most people from these troublesome countries.

You can't.

I'm going to ban anyone that doesn't seem to be well-known to us and are from these troublesome contries.

You can, for now, but we're going to be talking about this soon. Don't get comfortable.

@9: This is a semantic debate, so it is beyond pointless, but I would like to point out that you are wrong from point one. There was never an effort to ban all Muslims. In reality, it started at point #3, although in effect point #2 and #3 are the same, but #3 is actually phrased correctly as to what the initial EO said/did.

@10,

"Donald J. 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," a campaign press release said."

http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/07/politics/d…

It's amazing that any lower courts even entertained the idea that Trump's travel ban was unconstitutional(and what an embarrassibg waste it turn out to be for politicians like AG Ferguson).

The president explicitly has the right to determine who can and cannot enter the USA for security reasons. A muslim ban would be constitutional as well because it constitutional rights do not apply to non-citizen abroad. It's not a moral document that applies to the world. Of course, leftist judge have been interpreting it that way for years, but it's patently absurd.

I thank the Gods everyday that some semblance of balance is slowly being restored in the West. We have a long way to go to take back control of our nation-states and defeat the globalists, but we are making great progress. Down with White Genocide!

@11: A campaign press release is not an executive order, nor is a campaign press release being reviewed by the Supreme Court.

@8

Since this matter is meaningful enough for you to have posted at least thrice by now, could you also explain the point of the link you provide? It's from February, first of all, when there was a different version of Pres. Trump's Muslim ban. And second, it's an interpretation--that is, just because it may coincide with what you say doesn't mean it's accurate. And third, to take a line you have been fond of using, did you actually read the link you posted? Here are a couple of sections:

We’ll begin by noting that the order does not affect most Muslims. According to the nonpartisan Pew Research Center, there are 49 majority-Muslim nations and the seven covered by the order have only about 12 percent of the world’s 1.6 billion Muslims.

Nevertheless, there is some basis for viewing the order as targeting Muslims.

And the final portion of the article you linked:

In summary

The order does not specifically bar Muslims. It applies only to citizens of Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia and Yemen. Those seven countries have only 12 percent of the world’s Muslims and Muslims from other countries can still enter the United States.

But each of the seven is majority-Muslim. And the order follows not only repeated statements Trump made during his presidential campaign specifically calling for a Muslim ban, but subsequent statements he made about finding a legal means for the executive order.

And although Trump says the order is aimed at protecting America from terrorism, and the seven targeted countries have been singled out for supporting terrorism , no one in the United States has been killed in a terrorist attack by someone from the seven countries.

So perhaps I am having problems with my reading skills, but it seems to me that the link kind of hedges a little, but essentially says it's pretty much a Muslim ban.

@14: The link was posted merely for the 12% statistic as evidence for its veracity. Politifact is geared towards liberals, so it has to hedge those bets to appeal to its audience. So it gives you the fact (12%), but then tries to make that fact irrelevant through sophistry. It worked very well on you, so it is a pretty good example of this trick.

Anything else is subjective and meaningless. You can call it whatever you want. Call it a grapefruit ban if you want, it does not change the reality of what the order is, and what it does. The simple fact is it does not bar 88% of the world's Muslim population from entering the US.

If the government passed a law banning a kind of wheat that 12% of beers are made with, would you call it a "beer ban?"

Lastly, I am replying to people because they are replying to me and asking questions. I feel it is rude to not even attempt a response, so here I am. I try to only avoid responding to posts that are pointless, nonsensical, personal attacks, or just flat out dumb.