Re: NZ Terror Attack
Posted: Tue Mar 19, 2019 8:47 pm
Just another example of why white supremacist see him as one of their own. Pershing didn't do this of course but trump doesn't care about that.
UJRefugees.net
UJ's Hamster Died. We're All That's Left...
https://www.ujrefugees.net/
NZ Terror Attack
Page 7 of 9
Re: NZ Terror Attack
Posted: Tue Mar 19, 2019 8:49 pm
Nobody knows military better than Trump
Re: NZ Terror Attack
Posted: Tue Mar 19, 2019 8:51 pm
Re: NZ Terror Attack
Posted: Tue Mar 19, 2019 8:54 pm
Man, Stapes has the TDS really bad. Almost pathological. Toss and turning all night type pathological.
Re: NZ Terror Attack
Posted: Tue Mar 19, 2019 8:56 pm
He's clearly lying about something that never happened and he if he believes it happened it is a horrible way of conducting oneself during a war. Spreading this bullshit does nothing but inflame Muslims.
Re: NZ Terror Attack
Posted: Tue Mar 19, 2019 8:58 pm
This is a perfect WTC story, he'll claim it happened and provide no proof but his "memory"
Re: NZ Terror Attack
Posted: Tue Mar 19, 2019 8:59 pm
Have you not been watching the Lib Loons the last 2 1/2 years? It's always the same point(less)- "Orange Man Bad". Repeat ad nauseam.
Re: NZ Terror Attack
Posted: Tue Mar 19, 2019 9:02 pm
Trump is spreading a Islamophobic lie, straight up lying to them and they don't see anything wrong with it!
Re: NZ Terror Attack
Posted: Tue Mar 19, 2019 9:05 pm
49 Muslims just got shot by a Trump admirer...….what's your point?
Re: NZ Terror Attack
Posted: Tue Mar 19, 2019 9:10 pm
Yeah yeah ok whatever.. i just can't really see the point in frantically grasping at every opportunity to associate every bit of bad news with him. Regardless of whether this happened or not. It just doesn't seem productive. No one's defending this dumb story. At least not this guy.CaptQuint wrote: ↑Tue Mar 19, 2019 8:56 pmHe's clearly lying about something that never happened and he if he believes it happened it is a horrible way of conducting oneself during a war. Spreading this bullshit does nothing but inflame Muslims.
Re: NZ Terror Attack
Posted: Tue Mar 19, 2019 9:11 pm
Lmao.. dumbass 50 people died.. another 50 injured..Stapes wrote: ↑Tue Mar 19, 2019 9:05 pm
49 Muslims just got shot by a Trump admirer...….what's your point?
You're really connecting those dots? Derp derp derp
Re: NZ Terror Attack
Posted: Tue Mar 19, 2019 9:11 pm
The mass murderer connected himself with TrumpJackRabbit_Slim wrote: ↑Tue Mar 19, 2019 9:10 pmYeah yeah ok whatever.. i just can't really see the point in frantically grasping at every opportunity to associate every bit of bad news with him. Regardless of whether this happened or not. It just doesn't seem productive. No one's defending this dumb story. At least not this guy.CaptQuint wrote: ↑Tue Mar 19, 2019 8:56 pmHe's clearly lying about something that never happened and he if he believes it happened it is a horrible way of conducting oneself during a war. Spreading this bullshit does nothing but inflame Muslims.
Re: NZ Terror Attack
Posted: Tue Mar 19, 2019 9:13 pm
Case in point. At the mere sight of "Orange Man", start frothing at the mouth like a rabies outbreak. It's actually quit fun. You can stir them up like a hornets nest using a stick and behind protective gear and watch with hilarity from a distance as they wail away for hours/ days. Very enjoyable. Been a great hobby lately.
Re: NZ Terror Attack
Posted: Tue Mar 19, 2019 9:16 pm
Retard continues babbling about orange men and pays no mind to the fact he is a duped moron!
Re: NZ Terror Attack
Posted: Tue Mar 19, 2019 9:16 pm
So if i go kill a bunch of people and shout "i did it for quint" it's your fault then? Hmm.. great logic.CaptQuint wrote: ↑Tue Mar 19, 2019 9:11 pmThe mass murderer connected himself with TrumpJackRabbit_Slim wrote: ↑Tue Mar 19, 2019 9:10 pmYeah yeah ok whatever.. i just can't really see the point in frantically grasping at every opportunity to associate every bit of bad news with him. Regardless of whether this happened or not. It just doesn't seem productive. No one's defending this dumb story. At least not this guy.CaptQuint wrote: ↑Tue Mar 19, 2019 8:56 pmHe's clearly lying about something that never happened and he if he believes it happened it is a horrible way of conducting oneself during a war. Spreading this bullshit does nothing but inflame Muslims.
Re: NZ Terror Attack
Posted: Tue Mar 19, 2019 9:18 pm
No one said it was Trumps fault, try to keep up, your analogy is crap.JackRabbit_Slim wrote: ↑Tue Mar 19, 2019 9:16 pmSo if i go kill a bunch of people and shout "i did it for quint" it's your fault then? Hmm.. great logic.CaptQuint wrote: ↑Tue Mar 19, 2019 9:11 pmThe mass murderer connected himself with TrumpJackRabbit_Slim wrote: ↑Tue Mar 19, 2019 9:10 pmYeah yeah ok whatever.. i just can't really see the point in frantically grasping at every opportunity to associate every bit of bad news with him. Regardless of whether this happened or not. It just doesn't seem productive. No one's defending this dumb story. At least not this guy.CaptQuint wrote: ↑Tue Mar 19, 2019 8:56 pmHe's clearly lying about something that never happened and he if he believes it happened it is a horrible way of conducting oneself during a war. Spreading this bullshit does nothing but inflame Muslims.
Re: NZ Terror Attack
Posted: Tue Mar 19, 2019 9:33 pm
Derp derp derp that's exactly what you're saying.. you're just saying it indirectly..
Trump emboldens white supremacist... white supremacist kills people... derp derp derp trump kills people... derp derp orange man bad...
You're a fine boy though.. don't worry bout that.
Trump emboldens white supremacist... white supremacist kills people... derp derp derp trump kills people... derp derp orange man bad...
You're a fine boy though.. don't worry bout that.
Re: NZ Terror Attack
Posted: Tue Mar 19, 2019 9:35 pm
I wonder why they admire him so????
He does nothing to discourage them, because he knows the wingnuts and racists will stop supporting him and he needs them
He does nothing to discourage them, because he knows the wingnuts and racists will stop supporting him and he needs them
Re: NZ Terror Attack
Posted: Tue Mar 19, 2019 9:38 pm
Please, do not try logic with them. In their blind fury, it just bounces off.JackRabbit_Slim wrote: ↑Tue Mar 19, 2019 9:16 pmSo if i go kill a bunch of people and shout "i did it for quint" it's your fault then? Hmm.. great logic.CaptQuint wrote: ↑Tue Mar 19, 2019 9:11 pmThe mass murderer connected himself with TrumpJackRabbit_Slim wrote: ↑Tue Mar 19, 2019 9:10 pmYeah yeah ok whatever.. i just can't really see the point in frantically grasping at every opportunity to associate every bit of bad news with him. Regardless of whether this happened or not. It just doesn't seem productive. No one's defending this dumb story. At least not this guy.CaptQuint wrote: ↑Tue Mar 19, 2019 8:56 pmHe's clearly lying about something that never happened and he if he believes it happened it is a horrible way of conducting oneself during a war. Spreading this bullshit does nothing but inflame Muslims.
Re: NZ Terror Attack
Posted: Tue Mar 19, 2019 9:44 pm
In unrelated news, the Supreme Court (in session since Oct 2018) released their 1st opinion of the judicial season. You guessed it, another major win for the Trump Admin. Concerned illegal alien criminals. This Winning just will not stop. And in no surprise, the 9th Circuit out of San Fran gets slapped down again. Time to break that POS up.
Re: NZ Terror Attack
Posted: Tue Mar 19, 2019 9:50 pm
They've lost 63 times in court and lost 90% of their deregulation fights. "Losers"
Re: NZ Terror Attack
Posted: Tue Mar 19, 2019 9:56 pm
The court ruled 5-4 along ideological lines, with its conservative justices in the majority and its liberal justices dissenting, that federal authorities could place such immigrants into indefinite detention anytime without the possibility of bail, not just immediately after they finish prison sentences.
The ruling, authored by conservative Justice Samuel Alito, left open the possibility that some immigrants could challenge their detention. These immigrants potentially could argue that the use of the 1996 federal law involved in the case, the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, against them long after finishing their sentences would violate their due process rights under the U.S. Constitution.
Most of the plaintiffs in the case are legal immigrants.
The law states the government can detain convicted immigrants “when the alien is released” from criminal detention. Civil rights lawyers in the case argued that the language of the law shows that it applies only immediately after immigrants are released. The Trump administration said the government should have the power to detain such immigrants anytime.
In dissent, liberal Justice Stephen Breyer said the ruling raises serious due process questions.
“It runs the gravest risk of depriving those whom the government has detained of one of the oldest and most important of our constitutionally guaranteed freedoms,” Breyer wrote.
But Alito wrote that it is not the court’s job to impose a time limit for when immigrants can be detained after serving a prison sentence. Alito noted that the court has previously said that “an official’s crucial duties are better carried out late than never.” Alito said the challengers’ assertion that immigrants had to be detained within 24 hours of ending a prison sentence is “especially hard to swallow.”
It marked Trump’s latest immigration victory at the court. The conservative justices also were in the majority in June 2018 when the court upheld on a 5-4 vote Trump’s travel ban targeting people from several Muslim-majority countries.
Tuesday’s decision follows a February 2018 ruling in a similar case in which the conservative majority, over liberal dissent, curbed the ability of immigrants held in long-term detention during deportation proceedings to argue for release.
‘MOST EXTREME INTERPRETATION’
American Civil Liberties Union lawyer Cecilia Wang, who argued the newly decided case for the challengers, said that in both rulings “the Supreme Court has endorsed the most extreme interpretation of immigration detention statutes, allowing mass incarceration of people without any hearing, simply because they are defending themselves against a deportation charge.”
Wang said the ACLU is “looking into follow-up litigation along various avenues.”
Trump has backed limits on legal and illegal immigrants since taking office in January 2017.
Kerri Kupec, a U.S. Justice Department spokeswoman, said administration officials were pleased with the ruling.
The case’s plaintiffs included two legal U.S. residents involved in separate lawsuits filed in 2013, a Cambodian immigrant named Mony Preap convicted of marijuana possession and a Palestinian immigrant named Bassam Yusuf Khoury convicted of attempting to manufacture a controlled substance.
In the two detention case rulings, the Supreme Court reversed the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, a liberal leaning court with jurisdiction over a large part of the western United States that Trump has frequently criticized. In both cases, litigation against the federal government started before Trump took office.
In the latest case, the administration had appealed a 2016 9th Circuit ruling that favored immigrants, a decision it said would undermine the government’s ability to deport immigrants who have committed crimes.
The 9th Circuit had ruled that convicted immigrants who are not immediately detained by immigration authorities after finishing their sentences but then later picked up by immigration authorities could seek bond hearings to argue for their release.
Other regional federal appeals courts that have addressed the issue did not rule the same way as the 9th Circuit and were more in line with the Supreme Court’s ruling. That means immigrants in those regions who were subject to mandatory detention already were not entitled to bond hearings.
Under federal immigration law, immigrants convicted of certain offenses are subject to mandatory detention during their deportation process. They can be held indefinitely without a bond hearing after completing their sentences.
In April 2018, conservative Trump appointee Neil Gorsuch joined the court’s four liberals in a 5-4 ruling that could hinder the administration’s ability to step up the removal of immigrants with criminal records, invalidating a provision in another law, the Immigration and Nationality Act.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa- ... SKCN1R01TF
The ruling, authored by conservative Justice Samuel Alito, left open the possibility that some immigrants could challenge their detention. These immigrants potentially could argue that the use of the 1996 federal law involved in the case, the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, against them long after finishing their sentences would violate their due process rights under the U.S. Constitution.
Most of the plaintiffs in the case are legal immigrants.
The law states the government can detain convicted immigrants “when the alien is released” from criminal detention. Civil rights lawyers in the case argued that the language of the law shows that it applies only immediately after immigrants are released. The Trump administration said the government should have the power to detain such immigrants anytime.
In dissent, liberal Justice Stephen Breyer said the ruling raises serious due process questions.
“It runs the gravest risk of depriving those whom the government has detained of one of the oldest and most important of our constitutionally guaranteed freedoms,” Breyer wrote.
But Alito wrote that it is not the court’s job to impose a time limit for when immigrants can be detained after serving a prison sentence. Alito noted that the court has previously said that “an official’s crucial duties are better carried out late than never.” Alito said the challengers’ assertion that immigrants had to be detained within 24 hours of ending a prison sentence is “especially hard to swallow.”
It marked Trump’s latest immigration victory at the court. The conservative justices also were in the majority in June 2018 when the court upheld on a 5-4 vote Trump’s travel ban targeting people from several Muslim-majority countries.
Tuesday’s decision follows a February 2018 ruling in a similar case in which the conservative majority, over liberal dissent, curbed the ability of immigrants held in long-term detention during deportation proceedings to argue for release.
‘MOST EXTREME INTERPRETATION’
American Civil Liberties Union lawyer Cecilia Wang, who argued the newly decided case for the challengers, said that in both rulings “the Supreme Court has endorsed the most extreme interpretation of immigration detention statutes, allowing mass incarceration of people without any hearing, simply because they are defending themselves against a deportation charge.”
Wang said the ACLU is “looking into follow-up litigation along various avenues.”
Trump has backed limits on legal and illegal immigrants since taking office in January 2017.
Kerri Kupec, a U.S. Justice Department spokeswoman, said administration officials were pleased with the ruling.
The case’s plaintiffs included two legal U.S. residents involved in separate lawsuits filed in 2013, a Cambodian immigrant named Mony Preap convicted of marijuana possession and a Palestinian immigrant named Bassam Yusuf Khoury convicted of attempting to manufacture a controlled substance.
In the two detention case rulings, the Supreme Court reversed the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, a liberal leaning court with jurisdiction over a large part of the western United States that Trump has frequently criticized. In both cases, litigation against the federal government started before Trump took office.
In the latest case, the administration had appealed a 2016 9th Circuit ruling that favored immigrants, a decision it said would undermine the government’s ability to deport immigrants who have committed crimes.
The 9th Circuit had ruled that convicted immigrants who are not immediately detained by immigration authorities after finishing their sentences but then later picked up by immigration authorities could seek bond hearings to argue for their release.
Other regional federal appeals courts that have addressed the issue did not rule the same way as the 9th Circuit and were more in line with the Supreme Court’s ruling. That means immigrants in those regions who were subject to mandatory detention already were not entitled to bond hearings.
Under federal immigration law, immigrants convicted of certain offenses are subject to mandatory detention during their deportation process. They can be held indefinitely without a bond hearing after completing their sentences.
In April 2018, conservative Trump appointee Neil Gorsuch joined the court’s four liberals in a 5-4 ruling that could hinder the administration’s ability to step up the removal of immigrants with criminal records, invalidating a provision in another law, the Immigration and Nationality Act.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa- ... SKCN1R01TF
Re: NZ Terror Attack
Posted: Tue Mar 19, 2019 10:17 pm
He doesn't do exactly what you want when you want him to do it? And if he did, then you'd be ok with him? No. These people did what they did, just like the congressmen shooter. If I recall, the media blamed Trump for that, as well.
Re: NZ Terror Attack
Posted: Tue Mar 19, 2019 10:20 pm
I didn't know calling out violent racists was such a difficult thing to doVinceBordenIII wrote: ↑Tue Mar 19, 2019 10:17 pmHe doesn't do exactly what you want when you want him to do it? And if he did, then you'd be ok with him? No. These people did what they did, just like the congressmen shooter. If I recall, the media blamed Trump for that, as well.
Re: NZ Terror Attack
Posted: Tue Mar 19, 2019 10:22 pm
Senator Bernie Sanders responded on the Senate floor to news that Hodgkinson was a campaign volunteer for his 2016 presidential run:
I have just been informed that the alleged shooter at the Republican baseball practice is someone who apparently volunteered on my presidential campaign. I am sickened by this despicable act. Let me be as clear as I can be, violence of any kind is unacceptable in our society and I condemn this action in the strongest possible terms. Real change can only come about through nonviolent action, and anything else runs counter to our most deeply held American values.[67]
I have just been informed that the alleged shooter at the Republican baseball practice is someone who apparently volunteered on my presidential campaign. I am sickened by this despicable act. Let me be as clear as I can be, violence of any kind is unacceptable in our society and I condemn this action in the strongest possible terms. Real change can only come about through nonviolent action, and anything else runs counter to our most deeply held American values.[67]