And now a lesson on media. Does Trump actually have the power to enact a temporary halt on immigration? We’ve done it multiple times before, multiple multiple times before. The legal work isn’t even arguing that the president cannot do this. It is arguing that HE cannot do this. Him. Specifically. Because he is “bigoted”. That is what the legal work is submitting and it’s basis for 1st Amendment claims. It is bypassing the law itself and how it is written and thus enforced, and using personal criticism as a means to subvert the law. If you believed this was part of checks and balances you are a fucking idiot.
And here is an important lesson children; if you heard “checks and balances” and thought, well I know what those two words mean so I know what that statement means, you’re part of this problem. The Semantic Problem. You have no fucking idea what that actually means. You just know the words used and assumed the definition and then, somehow, APPLIED THIS TO AREAS YOU HAVE NO IDEA IF IT EVEN APPLIES TO IN SITUATIONS YOU HAVE NO IDEA IF IT APPLIES TO LET ALONE HOW IT APPLIES. We have a serious problem with this and hence, why we have problems in amendments about free speech, firearms and church and state. People read the names and then think, well I get that. Free Speech. Of course.
You have no fucking clue.
You know you have no fucking clue too. But you FEEL it is the right way it should be.
So you make it a meme and this is how marxists intend to use language to craft reality DO YOU SEE WHERE I AM GOING WITH THIS ISSUE
DO YOU SEE WHY I CALL YOU USEFUL FUCKING IDIOTS
THIS IS LAW. LAW HAS PRECEDENCE, YOU ARE PLAYING GAMES WITH THINGS YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT AND HAVE NO IDEA HOW BAD THE CONSEQUENCES ARE.
Rather than our language and legal terminology rising from the reality of the situations as they manifest, you are making them instead, all about how you feel something is or should be and thus, crafting an outcome via precedence and misnomers. Our law will no longer be about dealing with situations it will be about enabling them.
Think of this. What do you think the legal precedence is going to be if you can dismiss a law based on PERCEIVED bigotry? Based in a past statement. The statement is not even being represented truthfully.
Do you have the slightest fucking clue as to how little this is a mother fucking game you are playing?
WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH MEDIA DIRECTLY? Alright lets touch this. He knows what he can and cannot do. He says the constant court clogging over nothing makes us look weak.
— Lou Dobbs (@LouDobbs) March 16, 2017
Because we are divided politically to the extent we have judges pulling cases they know have no legal basis. So, keeping in mind what I said about semantics and about knowing and thinking one knows what things really are. This is how media represents this. And many will believe it because, they don’t actually know jack shit.
This is how you can portray acting in line with the law as betraying the law. You know. Exactly what they’re doing. And we reach this again
Rule number fucking one of the playbook:
Accuse others of what you are guilty of.
Look at what it took to de-tangle the bullshit in this thread. Do you think the average person has the time or care to learn this? This is how you render a society controllable and manipulate it. Make it a giant pain in the ass to do anything other than submit. And that is why Peace through Submission is the definition. If you saw this going down every single day, you’d be angry too. Thankfully I am already mentally damaged and just hold grudges.