Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting!
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
On June 27 2018 00:30 Plansix wrote: [quote] Except for the President’s public statements on the issue. I do not find it encouraging that the conservative justices set aside all of his statements when deciding the injunction. When the full case reaches the court, I half expect them to do it again.
The underlying problem with them setting aside the public statements of the president about the ban and Muslims is that it sets up a clear divide between the written justification behind the executive branches order and the public statements of the head of the executive branch. In a sense, doublethink, where the presidents says the exact opposite of what the justification for the executive order were.
The full case has not been decided, but I am not encouraged by the trajectory of the court on these issues. From undoing the voter’s rights act to this, they seem to be retreating from upholding safeguards to protect the homogeneity of our nation. I will be surprised if they do anything but uphold the travel ban that was overtly created to target Muslims.
What the president said is irrelevant when you have a facially neutral ban. The ban only applies to like seven predominantly Muslim countries that failed to comply with State Department requests for cooperation, plus North Korea (same reasons). Let's just presume for a second that Trump wants to eliminate all Muslim travel to the US. If that's the goal, the current travel ban does a pretty piss poor job of accomplishing that goal.
The attacks on the ban amount to little more than a leftist temper tantrum. President Trump said something mean about Muslims, so he needs to be challenged on it. And that's fine, but the travel ban is not the proper target of liberal ire. Now maybe the plaintiffs will find evidence of discriminatory animus against Muslims in how the travel ban is being applied, but I highly doubt that will be the case.
Now your position makes so much more sense. It's completely ridiculous, but at least now I can slightly understand how you reconcile your position with the reality it's disconnected from.
That's literally how the decades of state violence and oppression against vulnerable citizens was justified.
Also did someone really argue McCain isn't racist? Like McCain is far from the worst the Republicans have to offer but the guy is unabashedly racist.
"I hate the gooks. I will hate them as long as I live."
Yeah, that guy totally isn't racist. Just like the laws aren't, the police aren't and neither are the positions of the people supporting Trump. None of it is racist and it's all a way for marginalized people to get off. Because being fake oppressed and exploited is the way we enjoy life, and is no way a desperate plea for white people to check their brothers and sisters and have them treat us like equal human beings.
I can understand why people like xDaunt and Danglars would think that kind of trash, they are just absolutely and dangerously wrong.
Feel free to connect the dots on why the travel ban is racist. Everyone keeps pointing to what Trump said, but let's get real: the proof is in the pudding. What does the travel ban actually do and who does it impact? And don't bother likening the travel ban to Jim Crow laws. The disparate impact is no where near the same.
Is there really an argument that the travel ban does not disproportionately impacts people of the Muslim faith?
Yes, there is. The travel ban affects a very, very small minority of Muslims worldwide. Jim Crow laws had broad-based impacts against the American black population.
That wasn't the question. It's not about the proportion of the global population impacted, the question was about the people impacted being disproportionately Muslim. I assume you knew that and avoided the question on purpose though.
Of course it is about the proportion of the global population impacted. It would be asinine to assess it any other way. The whole basis of disparate impact analysis is that one group is significantly impacted by an unjustified, facially neutral policy.
So your point is that it is not relevant that the policy mostly impacts muslims (the probability of someone impacted by the policy being muslim), what is relevant it the percentage of muslims impacted? (The probability of someone who is a muslim being impacted by the policy)
I'm not saying that it is entirely irrelevant that it impacts mostly Muslims, but it is absolutely incorrect to ignore the percentage of Muslims affected. You have to look at the totality of the circumstances.
So, if i bomb 5 churches and murder a few hundred christians that way (and no one else), it can not be proven that i am acting out of a hate of christians, because the percentage of christians effected is miniscule, even though i only target christians?
No, this would not fall under disparate impact analysis, because it's not a facially neutral policy. Try again.
I don't know if you're going for internet kudos or something, but the veracity of jargon is very much beside the point, especially since you're the one introducing it to the conversation. Let me guide you back to the actual point, with a helpful re-quote:
On June 27 2018 00:12 Plansix wrote: Except that they set aside all Trump’s statements on Muslims during the campaign as irrelevant. But apparently the commission’s statements about religion were very important in the Masterpiece case. It would seem that all religions are not treated equally in the eyes conservatives Justices. Especially when it comes to government officials disparaging those religion. A more cynical person would question if those justices view disparaging statements about their own religion as more serious than disparaging statements about other religions.
First, the cases were at different stages in their proceedings. The Masterpiece case had a fully developed record. This case is at preliminary, pre-discovery proceedings, and the Court only decided to lift the preliminary injunction. No decision was made on the merits. Second, this case concerns foreign policy issues, which makes it much harder to uphold the preliminary injunction. Finally, the statements used and relied upon in the Masterpiece case were really, really bad and demonstrated discriminatory animus as applied on a case by case basis. There's no record of that happening here (yet).
Except for the President’s public statements on the issue. I do not find it encouraging that the conservative justices set aside all of his statements when deciding the injunction. When the full case reaches the court, I half expect them to do it again.
The underlying problem with them setting aside the public statements of the president about the ban and Muslims is that it sets up a clear divide between the written justification behind the executive branches order and the public statements of the head of the executive branch. In a sense, doublethink, where the presidents says the exact opposite of what the justification for the executive order were.
The full case has not been decided, but I am not encouraged by the trajectory of the court on these issues. From undoing the voter’s rights act to this, they seem to be retreating from upholding safeguards to protect the homogeneity of our nation. I will be surprised if they do anything but uphold the travel ban that was overtly created to target Muslims.
What the president said is irrelevant when you have a facially neutral ban. The ban only applies to like seven predominantly Muslim countries that failed to comply with State Department requests for cooperation, plus North Korea (same reasons). Let's just presume for a second that Trump wants to eliminate all Muslim travel to the US. If that's the goal, the current travel ban does a pretty piss poor job of accomplishing that goal.
The attacks on the ban amount to little more than a leftist temper tantrum. President Trump said something mean about Muslims, so he needs to be challenged on it. And that's fine, but the travel ban is not the proper target of liberal ire. Now maybe the plaintiffs will find evidence of discriminatory animus against Muslims in how the travel ban is being applied, but I highly doubt that will be the case.
Now your position makes so much more sense. It's completely ridiculous, but at least now I can slightly understand how you reconcile your position with the reality it's disconnected from.
That's literally how the decades of state violence and oppression against vulnerable citizens was justified.
Also did someone really argue McCain isn't racist? Like McCain is far from the worst the Republicans have to offer but the guy is unabashedly racist.
"I hate the gooks. I will hate them as long as I live."
Yeah, that guy totally isn't racist. Just like the laws aren't, the police aren't and neither are the positions of the people supporting Trump. None of it is racist and it's all a way for marginalized people to get off. Because being fake oppressed and exploited is the way we enjoy life, and is no way a desperate plea for white people to check their brothers and sisters and have them treat us like equal human beings.
I can understand why people like xDaunt and Danglars would think that kind of trash, they are just absolutely and dangerously wrong.
Feel free to connect the dots on why the travel ban is racist. Everyone keeps pointing to what Trump said, but let's get real: the proof is in the pudding. What does the travel ban actually do and who does it impact? And don't bother likening the travel ban to Jim Crow laws. The disparate impact is no where near the same.
Is there really an argument that the travel ban does not disproportionately impacts people of the Muslim faith?
Yes, there is. The travel ban affects a very, very small minority of Muslims worldwide. Jim Crow laws had broad-based impacts against the American black population.
That wasn't the question. It's not about the proportion of the global population impacted, the question was about the people impacted being disproportionately Muslim. I assume you knew that and avoided the question on purpose though.
Just because you don't like the point that's being made doesn't mean you get to re-frame it however you like.
On June 27 2018 00:42 xDaunt wrote: [quote] What the president said is irrelevant when you have a facially neutral ban. The ban only applies to like seven predominantly Muslim countries that failed to comply with State Department requests for cooperation, plus North Korea (same reasons). Let's just presume for a second that Trump wants to eliminate all Muslim travel to the US. If that's the goal, the current travel ban does a pretty piss poor job of accomplishing that goal.
The attacks on the ban amount to little more than a leftist temper tantrum. President Trump said something mean about Muslims, so he needs to be challenged on it. And that's fine, but the travel ban is not the proper target of liberal ire. Now maybe the plaintiffs will find evidence of discriminatory animus against Muslims in how the travel ban is being applied, but I highly doubt that will be the case.
Now your position makes so much more sense. It's completely ridiculous, but at least now I can slightly understand how you reconcile your position with the reality it's disconnected from.
That's literally how the decades of state violence and oppression against vulnerable citizens was justified.
Also did someone really argue McCain isn't racist? Like McCain is far from the worst the Republicans have to offer but the guy is unabashedly racist.
"I hate the gooks. I will hate them as long as I live."
Yeah, that guy totally isn't racist. Just like the laws aren't, the police aren't and neither are the positions of the people supporting Trump. None of it is racist and it's all a way for marginalized people to get off. Because being fake oppressed and exploited is the way we enjoy life, and is no way a desperate plea for white people to check their brothers and sisters and have them treat us like equal human beings.
I can understand why people like xDaunt and Danglars would think that kind of trash, they are just absolutely and dangerously wrong.
Feel free to connect the dots on why the travel ban is racist. Everyone keeps pointing to what Trump said, but let's get real: the proof is in the pudding. What does the travel ban actually do and who does it impact? And don't bother likening the travel ban to Jim Crow laws. The disparate impact is no where near the same.
Is there really an argument that the travel ban does not disproportionately impacts people of the Muslim faith?
Yes, there is. The travel ban affects a very, very small minority of Muslims worldwide. Jim Crow laws had broad-based impacts against the American black population.
That wasn't the question. It's not about the proportion of the global population impacted, the question was about the people impacted being disproportionately Muslim. I assume you knew that and avoided the question on purpose though.
Of course it is about the proportion of the global population impacted. It would be asinine to assess it any other way. The whole basis of disparate impact analysis is that one group is significantly impacted by an unjustified, facially neutral policy.
So your point is that it is not relevant that the policy mostly impacts muslims (the probability of someone impacted by the policy being muslim), what is relevant it the percentage of muslims impacted? (The probability of someone who is a muslim being impacted by the policy)
I'm not saying that it is entirely irrelevant that it impacts mostly Muslims, but it is absolutely incorrect to ignore the percentage of Muslims affected. You have to look at the totality of the circumstances.
So, if i bomb 5 churches and murder a few hundred christians that way (and no one else), it can not be proven that i am acting out of a hate of christians, because the percentage of christians effected is miniscule, even though i only target christians?
No, this would not fall under disparate impact analysis, because it's not a facially neutral policy. Try again.
Sure it would, so long as his manifesto said he was going to bomb people. That's facially neutral as to the people he's going to bomb.
No, it doesn't work that way. His hypothetical is clear cut direct discriminatory animus.
On June 27 2018 00:42 xDaunt wrote: [quote] What the president said is irrelevant when you have a facially neutral ban. The ban only applies to like seven predominantly Muslim countries that failed to comply with State Department requests for cooperation, plus North Korea (same reasons). Let's just presume for a second that Trump wants to eliminate all Muslim travel to the US. If that's the goal, the current travel ban does a pretty piss poor job of accomplishing that goal.
The attacks on the ban amount to little more than a leftist temper tantrum. President Trump said something mean about Muslims, so he needs to be challenged on it. And that's fine, but the travel ban is not the proper target of liberal ire. Now maybe the plaintiffs will find evidence of discriminatory animus against Muslims in how the travel ban is being applied, but I highly doubt that will be the case.
Now your position makes so much more sense. It's completely ridiculous, but at least now I can slightly understand how you reconcile your position with the reality it's disconnected from.
That's literally how the decades of state violence and oppression against vulnerable citizens was justified.
Also did someone really argue McCain isn't racist? Like McCain is far from the worst the Republicans have to offer but the guy is unabashedly racist.
"I hate the gooks. I will hate them as long as I live."
Yeah, that guy totally isn't racist. Just like the laws aren't, the police aren't and neither are the positions of the people supporting Trump. None of it is racist and it's all a way for marginalized people to get off. Because being fake oppressed and exploited is the way we enjoy life, and is no way a desperate plea for white people to check their brothers and sisters and have them treat us like equal human beings.
I can understand why people like xDaunt and Danglars would think that kind of trash, they are just absolutely and dangerously wrong.
Feel free to connect the dots on why the travel ban is racist. Everyone keeps pointing to what Trump said, but let's get real: the proof is in the pudding. What does the travel ban actually do and who does it impact? And don't bother likening the travel ban to Jim Crow laws. The disparate impact is no where near the same.
Is there really an argument that the travel ban does not disproportionately impacts people of the Muslim faith?
Yes, there is. The travel ban affects a very, very small minority of Muslims worldwide. Jim Crow laws had broad-based impacts against the American black population.
That wasn't the question. It's not about the proportion of the global population impacted, the question was about the people impacted being disproportionately Muslim. I assume you knew that and avoided the question on purpose though.
Of course it is about the proportion of the global population impacted. It would be asinine to assess it any other way. The whole basis of disparate impact analysis is that one group is significantly impacted by an unjustified, facially neutral policy.
So your point is that it is not relevant that the policy mostly impacts muslims (the probability of someone impacted by the policy being muslim), what is relevant it the percentage of muslims impacted? (The probability of someone who is a muslim being impacted by the policy)
I'm not saying that it is entirely irrelevant that it impacts mostly Muslims, but it is absolutely incorrect to ignore the percentage of Muslims affected. You have to look at the totality of the circumstances.
So, if i bomb 5 churches and murder a few hundred christians that way (and no one else), it can not be proven that i am acting out of a hate of christians, because the percentage of christians effected is miniscule, even though i only target christians?
No, this would not fall under disparate impact analysis, because it's not a facially neutral policy. Try again.
I don't know if you're going for internet kudos or something, but the veracity of jargon is very much beside the point, especially since you're the one introducing it to the conversation. Let me guide you back to the actual point, with a helpful re-quote:
On June 27 2018 00:12 Plansix wrote: Except that they set aside all Trump’s statements on Muslims during the campaign as irrelevant. But apparently the commission’s statements about religion were very important in the Masterpiece case. It would seem that all religions are not treated equally in the eyes conservatives Justices. Especially when it comes to government officials disparaging those religion. A more cynical person would question if those justices view disparaging statements about their own religion as more serious than disparaging statements about other religions.
First, the cases were at different stages in their proceedings. The Masterpiece case had a fully developed record. This case is at preliminary, pre-discovery proceedings, and the Court only decided to lift the preliminary injunction. No decision was made on the merits. Second, this case concerns foreign policy issues, which makes it much harder to uphold the preliminary injunction. Finally, the statements used and relied upon in the Masterpiece case were really, really bad and demonstrated discriminatory animus as applied on a case by case basis. There's no record of that happening here (yet).
Except for the President’s public statements on the issue. I do not find it encouraging that the conservative justices set aside all of his statements when deciding the injunction. When the full case reaches the court, I half expect them to do it again.
The underlying problem with them setting aside the public statements of the president about the ban and Muslims is that it sets up a clear divide between the written justification behind the executive branches order and the public statements of the head of the executive branch. In a sense, doublethink, where the presidents says the exact opposite of what the justification for the executive order were.
The full case has not been decided, but I am not encouraged by the trajectory of the court on these issues. From undoing the voter’s rights act to this, they seem to be retreating from upholding safeguards to protect the homogeneity of our nation. I will be surprised if they do anything but uphold the travel ban that was overtly created to target Muslims.
What the president said is irrelevant when you have a facially neutral ban. The ban only applies to like seven predominantly Muslim countries that failed to comply with State Department requests for cooperation, plus North Korea (same reasons). Let's just presume for a second that Trump wants to eliminate all Muslim travel to the US. If that's the goal, the current travel ban does a pretty piss poor job of accomplishing that goal.
The attacks on the ban amount to little more than a leftist temper tantrum. President Trump said something mean about Muslims, so he needs to be challenged on it. And that's fine, but the travel ban is not the proper target of liberal ire. Now maybe the plaintiffs will find evidence of discriminatory animus against Muslims in how the travel ban is being applied, but I highly doubt that will be the case.
Now your position makes so much more sense. It's completely ridiculous, but at least now I can slightly understand how you reconcile your position with the reality it's disconnected from.
That's literally how the decades of state violence and oppression against vulnerable citizens was justified.
Also did someone really argue McCain isn't racist? Like McCain is far from the worst the Republicans have to offer but the guy is unabashedly racist.
"I hate the gooks. I will hate them as long as I live."
Yeah, that guy totally isn't racist. Just like the laws aren't, the police aren't and neither are the positions of the people supporting Trump. None of it is racist and it's all a way for marginalized people to get off. Because being fake oppressed and exploited is the way we enjoy life, and is no way a desperate plea for white people to check their brothers and sisters and have them treat us like equal human beings.
I can understand why people like xDaunt and Danglars would think that kind of trash, they are just absolutely and dangerously wrong.
Feel free to connect the dots on why the travel ban is racist. Everyone keeps pointing to what Trump said, but let's get real: the proof is in the pudding. What does the travel ban actually do and who does it impact? And don't bother likening the travel ban to Jim Crow laws. The disparate impact is no where near the same.
Is there really an argument that the travel ban does not disproportionately impacts people of the Muslim faith?
Yes, there is. The travel ban affects a very, very small minority of Muslims worldwide. Jim Crow laws had broad-based impacts against the American black population.
That wasn't the question. It's not about the proportion of the global population impacted, the question was about the people impacted being disproportionately Muslim. I assume you knew that and avoided the question on purpose though.
Just because you don't like the point that's being made doesn't mean you get to re-frame it however you like.
These are legal terms of art, which I'm trying to patiently explain to all of you. But frankly, this ongoing petulance is getting old, so I'm done. Believe what you will.
On June 27 2018 05:37 GreenHorizons wrote: [quote]
Now your position makes so much more sense. It's completely ridiculous, but at least now I can slightly understand how you reconcile your position with the reality it's disconnected from.
That's literally how the decades of state violence and oppression against vulnerable citizens was justified.
Also did someone really argue McCain isn't racist? Like McCain is far from the worst the Republicans have to offer but the guy is unabashedly racist.
[quote] Yeah, that guy totally isn't racist. Just like the laws aren't, the police aren't and neither are the positions of the people supporting Trump. None of it is racist and it's all a way for marginalized people to get off. Because being fake oppressed and exploited is the way we enjoy life, and is no way a desperate plea for white people to check their brothers and sisters and have them treat us like equal human beings.
I can understand why people like xDaunt and Danglars would think that kind of trash, they are just absolutely and dangerously wrong.
Feel free to connect the dots on why the travel ban is racist. Everyone keeps pointing to what Trump said, but let's get real: the proof is in the pudding. What does the travel ban actually do and who does it impact? And don't bother likening the travel ban to Jim Crow laws. The disparate impact is no where near the same.
Is there really an argument that the travel ban does not disproportionately impacts people of the Muslim faith?
Yes, there is. The travel ban affects a very, very small minority of Muslims worldwide. Jim Crow laws had broad-based impacts against the American black population.
That wasn't the question. It's not about the proportion of the global population impacted, the question was about the people impacted being disproportionately Muslim. I assume you knew that and avoided the question on purpose though.
Of course it is about the proportion of the global population impacted. It would be asinine to assess it any other way. The whole basis of disparate impact analysis is that one group is significantly impacted by an unjustified, facially neutral policy.
So your point is that it is not relevant that the policy mostly impacts muslims (the probability of someone impacted by the policy being muslim), what is relevant it the percentage of muslims impacted? (The probability of someone who is a muslim being impacted by the policy)
I'm not saying that it is entirely irrelevant that it impacts mostly Muslims, but it is absolutely incorrect to ignore the percentage of Muslims affected. You have to look at the totality of the circumstances.
So, if i bomb 5 churches and murder a few hundred christians that way (and no one else), it can not be proven that i am acting out of a hate of christians, because the percentage of christians effected is miniscule, even though i only target christians?
No, this would not fall under disparate impact analysis, because it's not a facially neutral policy. Try again.
Sure it would, so long as his manifesto said he was going to bomb people. That's facially neutral as to the people he's going to bomb.
No, it doesn't work that way. His hypothetical is clear cut direct discriminatory animus.
No it's not. Maybe he just didn't get to the other people yet, or the churches just happened to be the best local targets. You're projecting your assumptions onto this facially neutral policy because of something he said which shouldn't be considered when assessing the neutrality of his targets as noted in the manifest of "bomb people".
On June 27 2018 00:12 Plansix wrote: Except that they set aside all Trump’s statements on Muslims during the campaign as irrelevant. But apparently the commission’s statements about religion were very important in the Masterpiece case. It would seem that all religions are not treated equally in the eyes conservatives Justices. Especially when it comes to government officials disparaging those religion. A more cynical person would question if those justices view disparaging statements about their own religion as more serious than disparaging statements about other religions.
First, the cases were at different stages in their proceedings. The Masterpiece case had a fully developed record. This case is at preliminary, pre-discovery proceedings, and the Court only decided to lift the preliminary injunction. No decision was made on the merits. Second, this case concerns foreign policy issues, which makes it much harder to uphold the preliminary injunction. Finally, the statements used and relied upon in the Masterpiece case were really, really bad and demonstrated discriminatory animus as applied on a case by case basis. There's no record of that happening here (yet).
Except for the President’s public statements on the issue. I do not find it encouraging that the conservative justices set aside all of his statements when deciding the injunction. When the full case reaches the court, I half expect them to do it again.
The underlying problem with them setting aside the public statements of the president about the ban and Muslims is that it sets up a clear divide between the written justification behind the executive branches order and the public statements of the head of the executive branch. In a sense, doublethink, where the presidents says the exact opposite of what the justification for the executive order were.
The full case has not been decided, but I am not encouraged by the trajectory of the court on these issues. From undoing the voter’s rights act to this, they seem to be retreating from upholding safeguards to protect the homogeneity of our nation. I will be surprised if they do anything but uphold the travel ban that was overtly created to target Muslims.
What the president said is irrelevant when you have a facially neutral ban. The ban only applies to like seven predominantly Muslim countries that failed to comply with State Department requests for cooperation, plus North Korea (same reasons). Let's just presume for a second that Trump wants to eliminate all Muslim travel to the US. If that's the goal, the current travel ban does a pretty piss poor job of accomplishing that goal.
The attacks on the ban amount to little more than a leftist temper tantrum. President Trump said something mean about Muslims, so he needs to be challenged on it. And that's fine, but the travel ban is not the proper target of liberal ire. Now maybe the plaintiffs will find evidence of discriminatory animus against Muslims in how the travel ban is being applied, but I highly doubt that will be the case.
Now your position makes so much more sense. It's completely ridiculous, but at least now I can slightly understand how you reconcile your position with the reality it's disconnected from.
That's literally how the decades of state violence and oppression against vulnerable citizens was justified.
Also did someone really argue McCain isn't racist? Like McCain is far from the worst the Republicans have to offer but the guy is unabashedly racist.
"I hate the gooks. I will hate them as long as I live."
Yeah, that guy totally isn't racist. Just like the laws aren't, the police aren't and neither are the positions of the people supporting Trump. None of it is racist and it's all a way for marginalized people to get off. Because being fake oppressed and exploited is the way we enjoy life, and is no way a desperate plea for white people to check their brothers and sisters and have them treat us like equal human beings.
I can understand why people like xDaunt and Danglars would think that kind of trash, they are just absolutely and dangerously wrong.
Feel free to connect the dots on why the travel ban is racist. Everyone keeps pointing to what Trump said, but let's get real: the proof is in the pudding. What does the travel ban actually do and who does it impact? And don't bother likening the travel ban to Jim Crow laws. The disparate impact is no where near the same.
Is there really an argument that the travel ban does not disproportionately impacts people of the Muslim faith?
Plansix wasn't asking a question in the context of legal terms. He asked if Muslims are disproportionately affected. xDaunt, you changed the topic somewhat to one that you think Plansix ought to have asked about, which might be interesting and useful but it's not the same topic.
edit: technically he was asking about the lack of existence of an argument for, but you get the idea
On June 27 2018 05:37 GreenHorizons wrote: [quote]
Now your position makes so much more sense. It's completely ridiculous, but at least now I can slightly understand how you reconcile your position with the reality it's disconnected from.
That's literally how the decades of state violence and oppression against vulnerable citizens was justified.
Also did someone really argue McCain isn't racist? Like McCain is far from the worst the Republicans have to offer but the guy is unabashedly racist.
[quote] Yeah, that guy totally isn't racist. Just like the laws aren't, the police aren't and neither are the positions of the people supporting Trump. None of it is racist and it's all a way for marginalized people to get off. Because being fake oppressed and exploited is the way we enjoy life, and is no way a desperate plea for white people to check their brothers and sisters and have them treat us like equal human beings.
I can understand why people like xDaunt and Danglars would think that kind of trash, they are just absolutely and dangerously wrong.
Feel free to connect the dots on why the travel ban is racist. Everyone keeps pointing to what Trump said, but let's get real: the proof is in the pudding. What does the travel ban actually do and who does it impact? And don't bother likening the travel ban to Jim Crow laws. The disparate impact is no where near the same.
Is there really an argument that the travel ban does not disproportionately impacts people of the Muslim faith?
Yes, there is. The travel ban affects a very, very small minority of Muslims worldwide. Jim Crow laws had broad-based impacts against the American black population.
That wasn't the question. It's not about the proportion of the global population impacted, the question was about the people impacted being disproportionately Muslim. I assume you knew that and avoided the question on purpose though.
Of course it is about the proportion of the global population impacted. It would be asinine to assess it any other way. The whole basis of disparate impact analysis is that one group is significantly impacted by an unjustified, facially neutral policy.
So your point is that it is not relevant that the policy mostly impacts muslims (the probability of someone impacted by the policy being muslim), what is relevant it the percentage of muslims impacted? (The probability of someone who is a muslim being impacted by the policy)
I'm not saying that it is entirely irrelevant that it impacts mostly Muslims, but it is absolutely incorrect to ignore the percentage of Muslims affected. You have to look at the totality of the circumstances.
So, if i bomb 5 churches and murder a few hundred christians that way (and no one else), it can not be proven that i am acting out of a hate of christians, because the percentage of christians effected is miniscule, even though i only target christians?
No, this would not fall under disparate impact analysis, because it's not a facially neutral policy. Try again.
I don't know if you're going for internet kudos or something, but the veracity of jargon is very much beside the point, especially since you're the one introducing it to the conversation. Let me guide you back to the actual point, with a helpful re-quote:
On June 27 2018 06:50 GreenHorizons wrote:
On June 27 2018 06:48 xDaunt wrote:
On June 27 2018 05:54 Plansix wrote:
On June 27 2018 05:49 xDaunt wrote:
On June 27 2018 05:37 GreenHorizons wrote:
On June 27 2018 00:42 xDaunt wrote:
On June 27 2018 00:30 Plansix wrote:
On June 27 2018 00:18 xDaunt wrote: [quote] First, the cases were at different stages in their proceedings. The Masterpiece case had a fully developed record. This case is at preliminary, pre-discovery proceedings, and the Court only decided to lift the preliminary injunction. No decision was made on the merits. Second, this case concerns foreign policy issues, which makes it much harder to uphold the preliminary injunction. Finally, the statements used and relied upon in the Masterpiece case were really, really bad and demonstrated discriminatory animus as applied on a case by case basis. There's no record of that happening here (yet).
Except for the President’s public statements on the issue. I do not find it encouraging that the conservative justices set aside all of his statements when deciding the injunction. When the full case reaches the court, I half expect them to do it again.
The underlying problem with them setting aside the public statements of the president about the ban and Muslims is that it sets up a clear divide between the written justification behind the executive branches order and the public statements of the head of the executive branch. In a sense, doublethink, where the presidents says the exact opposite of what the justification for the executive order were.
The full case has not been decided, but I am not encouraged by the trajectory of the court on these issues. From undoing the voter’s rights act to this, they seem to be retreating from upholding safeguards to protect the homogeneity of our nation. I will be surprised if they do anything but uphold the travel ban that was overtly created to target Muslims.
What the president said is irrelevant when you have a facially neutral ban. The ban only applies to like seven predominantly Muslim countries that failed to comply with State Department requests for cooperation, plus North Korea (same reasons). Let's just presume for a second that Trump wants to eliminate all Muslim travel to the US. If that's the goal, the current travel ban does a pretty piss poor job of accomplishing that goal.
The attacks on the ban amount to little more than a leftist temper tantrum. President Trump said something mean about Muslims, so he needs to be challenged on it. And that's fine, but the travel ban is not the proper target of liberal ire. Now maybe the plaintiffs will find evidence of discriminatory animus against Muslims in how the travel ban is being applied, but I highly doubt that will be the case.
Now your position makes so much more sense. It's completely ridiculous, but at least now I can slightly understand how you reconcile your position with the reality it's disconnected from.
That's literally how the decades of state violence and oppression against vulnerable citizens was justified.
Also did someone really argue McCain isn't racist? Like McCain is far from the worst the Republicans have to offer but the guy is unabashedly racist.
"I hate the gooks. I will hate them as long as I live."
Yeah, that guy totally isn't racist. Just like the laws aren't, the police aren't and neither are the positions of the people supporting Trump. None of it is racist and it's all a way for marginalized people to get off. Because being fake oppressed and exploited is the way we enjoy life, and is no way a desperate plea for white people to check their brothers and sisters and have them treat us like equal human beings.
I can understand why people like xDaunt and Danglars would think that kind of trash, they are just absolutely and dangerously wrong.
Feel free to connect the dots on why the travel ban is racist. Everyone keeps pointing to what Trump said, but let's get real: the proof is in the pudding. What does the travel ban actually do and who does it impact? And don't bother likening the travel ban to Jim Crow laws. The disparate impact is no where near the same.
Is there really an argument that the travel ban does not disproportionately impacts people of the Muslim faith?
Yes, there is. The travel ban affects a very, very small minority of Muslims worldwide. Jim Crow laws had broad-based impacts against the American black population.
That wasn't the question. It's not about the proportion of the global population impacted, the question was about the people impacted being disproportionately Muslim. I assume you knew that and avoided the question on purpose though.
Just because you don't like the point that's being made doesn't mean you get to re-frame it however you like.
These are legal terms of art, which I'm trying to patiently explain to all of you. But frankly, this ongoing petulance is getting old, so I'm done. Believe what you will.
Don't act like some kind of victim here. A point was being made, and you tried to change the subject to lord your knowledge over others. If it seems like people don't care what the exact definition of disparate impact is, it's because they don't. That's not the point.
edit: to be clear, it's not that the idea of disparate impact is useless, and it sure isn't that people have a hard time understanding it. It's that you're intentionally using it to frame the Muslim ban as a totally not-racist issue. Which is utter nonsense.
On June 27 2018 00:12 Plansix wrote: Except that they set aside all Trump’s statements on Muslims during the campaign as irrelevant. But apparently the commission’s statements about religion were very important in the Masterpiece case. It would seem that all religions are not treated equally in the eyes conservatives Justices. Especially when it comes to government officials disparaging those religion. A more cynical person would question if those justices view disparaging statements about their own religion as more serious than disparaging statements about other religions.
First, the cases were at different stages in their proceedings. The Masterpiece case had a fully developed record. This case is at preliminary, pre-discovery proceedings, and the Court only decided to lift the preliminary injunction. No decision was made on the merits. Second, this case concerns foreign policy issues, which makes it much harder to uphold the preliminary injunction. Finally, the statements used and relied upon in the Masterpiece case were really, really bad and demonstrated discriminatory animus as applied on a case by case basis. There's no record of that happening here (yet).
Except for the President’s public statements on the issue. I do not find it encouraging that the conservative justices set aside all of his statements when deciding the injunction. When the full case reaches the court, I half expect them to do it again.
The underlying problem with them setting aside the public statements of the president about the ban and Muslims is that it sets up a clear divide between the written justification behind the executive branches order and the public statements of the head of the executive branch. In a sense, doublethink, where the presidents says the exact opposite of what the justification for the executive order were.
The full case has not been decided, but I am not encouraged by the trajectory of the court on these issues. From undoing the voter’s rights act to this, they seem to be retreating from upholding safeguards to protect the homogeneity of our nation. I will be surprised if they do anything but uphold the travel ban that was overtly created to target Muslims.
What the president said is irrelevant when you have a facially neutral ban. The ban only applies to like seven predominantly Muslim countries that failed to comply with State Department requests for cooperation, plus North Korea (same reasons). Let's just presume for a second that Trump wants to eliminate all Muslim travel to the US. If that's the goal, the current travel ban does a pretty piss poor job of accomplishing that goal.
The attacks on the ban amount to little more than a leftist temper tantrum. President Trump said something mean about Muslims, so he needs to be challenged on it. And that's fine, but the travel ban is not the proper target of liberal ire. Now maybe the plaintiffs will find evidence of discriminatory animus against Muslims in how the travel ban is being applied, but I highly doubt that will be the case.
Now your position makes so much more sense. It's completely ridiculous, but at least now I can slightly understand how you reconcile your position with the reality it's disconnected from.
That's literally how the decades of state violence and oppression against vulnerable citizens was justified.
Also did someone really argue McCain isn't racist? Like McCain is far from the worst the Republicans have to offer but the guy is unabashedly racist.
"I hate the gooks. I will hate them as long as I live."
Yeah, that guy totally isn't racist. Just like the laws aren't, the police aren't and neither are the positions of the people supporting Trump. None of it is racist and it's all a way for marginalized people to get off. Because being fake oppressed and exploited is the way we enjoy life, and is no way a desperate plea for white people to check their brothers and sisters and have them treat us like equal human beings.
I can understand why people like xDaunt and Danglars would think that kind of trash, they are just absolutely and dangerously wrong.
Feel free to connect the dots on why the travel ban is racist. Everyone keeps pointing to what Trump said, but let's get real: the proof is in the pudding. What does the travel ban actually do and who does it impact? And don't bother likening the travel ban to Jim Crow laws. The disparate impact is no where near the same.
Is there really an argument that the travel ban does not disproportionately impacts people of the Muslim faith?
Plansix wasn't asking a question in the context of legal terms. He asked if Muslims are disproportionately affected. xDaunt, you changed the topic somewhat to one that you think Plansix ought to have asked about, which might be interesting and useful but it's not the same topic.
edit: technically he was asking about the lack of existence of an argument for, but you get the idea
Plansix asked the wrong question (unintentionally) in response to my post, and I reoriented him back to the right question. I didn't change any topic or move any goal posts. Again, this is what Plansix posed that question in response to:
On June 27 2018 05:49 xDaunt wrote: Feel free to connect the dots on why the travel ban is racist. Everyone keeps pointing to what Trump said, but let's get real: the proof is in the pudding. What does the travel ban actually do and who does it impact? And don't bother likening the travel ban to Jim Crow laws. The disparate impact is no where near the same.
So no, I did not change the topic. Someone else tried to. I've been wholly consistent.
EDIT: And seriously. You mods need to start looking at posts in context.
xDaunt if you had said "you are asking the wrong question in response to my post, here's what you should have asked and why" then that would have been fine, I think.
The travel ban doesn’t ban all Muslims, but it bans as many as Trump could legally get away with (just ask Rudy Giuliani, famed lawyer of high competence, who was tasked with putting it together). It still has clear anti-Muslim animus.
Here’s Giuliani explaining to the Honorable Judge Jeanine Porto that the impetus behind the executive order was to carry out the Muslim ban legally:
I don’t believe I asked the wrong question, Xdaunt just answered it like a lawyer by framing the answer in a way that supports his argument. He framed the impact as how many Muslims where banned of the potential population of Muslims. In that aspect he is correct, there are a lot of Muslims in the world and most of them are not banned.
However, if we look at that the people who have been negatively impacted by the ban, the overwhelming majority of them are Muslim and will be Muslim going forward. Given the vague nature of the National Security justification, it is hard to point to a specific reason the banned countries were chosen over other dangerous nations.
So we have a law that impacts Muslims, that the White House took three cracks at before it finally settled on a ban that wasn’t islamphobic on its face and a final wording that isn’t overly targeted at Muslims. Not a great look, but one the court decided wasn’t relevant.
I would also point out that this strict reading of the law would have also have had a good chance of upholding the Jim Crow laws. Those laws were not overtly racist on their face. The claims that the disparate impact was self evident was not based on the language law itself, but their enforcment. Leaning into that reasoning effective requires civil rights to be violated to serve as evidence that a law disproportionately impacts minorities. It significantly raises the burden to prove a law is discriminatory. Because it does not allow for the court to take into account what the legislation or executive said about the law while passing it.
On June 27 2018 07:57 micronesia wrote: xDaunt if you had said "you are asking the wrong question in response to my post, here's what you should have asked and why" then that would have been fine, I think.
The answer is that I was not specific enough with my question.
On June 27 2018 08:01 Doodsmack wrote: The travel ban doesn’t ban all Muslims, but it bans as many as Trump could legally get away with (just ask Rudy Giuliani, famed lawyer of high competence, who was tasked with putting it together). It still has clear anti-Muslim animus.
And this is actually the core of the argument. If the president calls for a muslim ban, and tries to figure out how to get away with a muslim ban, it is not absurd to assume that the thing he sells to his base as a muslim ban is in fact a ban against muslims.
You can not really expect people to completely ignore what Trump explicitly states he wants the thing he does to do, just because the thing he does does not explicitly include the language "against muslims". Arguing otherwise is just plainly absurd.
The republicans have been getting away with this shit for so long because they usually don't explicitly state that the shit they are doing is racist. They always have their front issues that just "coincidentally" lead to racist things. That might work, and at that level you at least still have some deniabilty. But it stops working if you also say that you want to do the thing to disciminate against a religion.
I know that as a lawyer your job is to find a way to justify untenable positions in some way, but i can't believe that "Ignore the video of me explicitly stating the reason for doing the thing, and explaining how i try to fool people to get around the rules preventing me from doing it. Only listen to the thing i finally produced, which coincidentally very similar to the thing i told i would do to fool people into believing that the illegal thing i am doing is not illegal" works on any level.
The guy told us he wants a total ban of Muslims entering the US. Several times. On Stage.
He then issued an executive order banning only entry from a set of Muslim-majority countries, not banning entry from any non-Muslim country that is currently at war or under severe civil strife.
And now we're gonna argue straight-faced about what the intent of the current iteration of that ban is? Sweet mother of obfuscation.
On June 27 2018 08:39 xDaunt wrote: The US Suprement Court agrees with my position, yet my position is “untenable.” Remarkable.
The slimmest possible majority of the court agrees with you. The minority wrote a scathing dissent that surprised a lot of people with how harsh it was on the ruling. I wouldn’t lean on the court for validation when it also produced a dissent longer than the ruling itself.
Unless you subscribe to the theory that the majority opinion is the only one that matters and all dissents should be discarded.
The guy literally comes out and say he wants a Muslim ban. He could've said a ban from dangerous countries, like x or y or used any other language, but he specifically stated a MUSLIM BAN. Then, Giulani himself states in that video that Trump called him and asked him to get a Muslim ban then asked him he can do it legally. I'm always flabbergasted at your art of spinning stuff xdaunt from such obvious racist statements.
On June 27 2018 08:49 BigFan wrote: The guy literally comes out and say he wants a Muslim ban. He could've said a ban from dangerous countries, like x or y or used any other language, but he specifically stated a MUSLIM BAN. Then, Giulani himself states in that video that Trump called him and asked him to get a Muslim ban then asked him he can do it legally. I'm always flabbergasted at your art of spinning stuff xdaunt from such obvious racist statements.
Perhaps if you read the Court’s opinion, you’d be less flabbergasted. I’ll break it down later.
Found this nice article that gives a timeline of the travel ban, including the changes and all the courts/judges that it's went through. Definitely worth a look for anyone who wants a refresher:
December 7, 2015: The Trump campaign news release Trump, then a Republican presidential front-runner, called for banning all Muslims from entering the United States.
"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 news release from his campaign said. The release came in wake of the mass shooting in San Bernardino, California, which left 14 people dead. Many of his supporters showed their approval on social media. However, others in Washington -- including members of the GOP -- were not as pleased. Trump's proposal is "not who we are as a party" and violates the Constitution, House Speaker Paul Ryan said at the time.
May 2016: Muslim ban 'just a suggestion' Later while campaigning, Trump noted the ban was "just a suggestion." "We have a serious problem, and it's a temporary ban -- it hasn't been called for yet, nobody's done it, this is just a suggestion until we find out what's going on," he told Fox News' Brian Kilmeade. Earlier that same month, Trump emphasized the temporary nature of the ban. "No, it was never meant to be -- I mean that's why it was temporary," he told Fox News' Greta Van Susteren, when asked if he would consider backing off the controversial ban.
On June 27 2018 08:49 BigFan wrote: The guy literally comes out and say he wants a Muslim ban. He could've said a ban from dangerous countries, like x or y or used any other language, but he specifically stated a MUSLIM BAN. Then, Giulani himself states in that video that Trump called him and asked him to get a Muslim ban then asked him he can do it legally. I'm always flabbergasted at your art of spinning stuff xdaunt from such obvious racist statements.
Perhaps if you read the Court’s opinion, you’d be less flabbergasted. I’ll break it down later.
The problem is that you are missing the main intention behind this ban. This didn't come out of left field, it's been an ongoing discussion, and Trump himself stated that he wanted a MUSLIM ban. Cmon, it doesn't get anymore straight forward than that. However, I'll take a look at the opinion if you do get to breaking it down later.
EPT
