"Fuck off" is not an argument.

Maher forgot to list Ben Carson as one of the deplorable Cabinet nominations. The man was honest at first -- said he didn't have the experience or the skills to do the job. Then SOMETHING happened to change his mind. Gives me the dry heaves, this does.

I can't stand Trump or pretty much any of his policies, and Morgan is a douche, but it's not technically a Muslim ban. It's dumb and won't make us any safer, but it's not a Muslim ban.

For people who are excited by the 9th circuit court victory, it's temporary. Like it or not he has the authority to stop immigration. Sucks but it's true.

Vote in 2018.

"Hillary Clinton was the lesser of two evils...."

I beg your pardon Bill? What part of lesser of two evils was an endorsement for Trump?

If one were to describe Hillary as the lesser evil, would that not effectively be an endorsement? The underlying inference being that Trump was the greater of the two evils surely?

I think I'll just chalk that one up as a brain fart and assume he said it bass aackwards.

Though lets not forget Mrs Sandwitch would have given us TPP and the Syrian no fly zone.

Genuinely struggling to call it between who would have been most disastrous.

Trump was probably worse for America, I suspect Clinton might have been worse for the rest of the world. Not that it matters what any of us think in hindsight.

& yes @LiquidDrift it clearly isn't an actual Muslim ban! The fact that the majority of the worlds Muslim population is not affected by it should probably have been a big clue.

I guess though, given Trumps rhetoric, people can be forgiven for seeing it that way.

But yes it's a list of seven countries compiled by Obamas administration for being hotbeds of terrorism (if not before being bombed, certainly after). Not even close to banning all Muslims from entering the country.

Probably useless and needlessly divisive, but the man does need to at least appear to be fulfilling his campaign promises.

I certainly don't think the Nazi comparisons are at all helpful. There's no shortage of genuine things to attack the man on, hysterical fabrications just make him look right.

You know you're on shaky ground when Piers Morgan is the voice of reason

You might want to look into the history of it, Trump in his own words called for a Muslim ban during the campaign, and Giuliani revealed that this travel ban was his attempt to do a "Muslim Ban" in a way that wasn't clearly illegal. The intent is to target Muslims, the fact that it doesn't target all Muslims (like those from the richest countries) doesn't negate that.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/01/29/trump-asked-for-a-muslim-ban-giuliani-says-and-ordered-a-commission-to-do-it-legally/

I am aware of the history of it. There is no such thing as a legal Muslim ban, and so sure, this is probably the closest they can get to it, but nevertheless it is not a Muslim ban because a) it prohibits everyone from those countries, not just Muslims, and 2) there are still plenty of other countries that are predominantly Muslim that are not prohibited. They didn't even stop most countries that are are predominantly Muslim.

Again, I think it's dumb, hurts our country, doesn't make it any more safe, etc, but it's not a...

Oh, it's a muslim ban alright. It just doesn't target muslims who have enough power to hurt us, only those powerless to hurt us. It's a coward's play to his base.

Correct, "fuck off" is the retort, and proper retort when replying to a lying twat like him, the argument followed.

Not yet being a complete and total ban on Muslims coming into America, as Trump promised, does not mean it's not a Muslim ban. You don't have to ban ALL Muslims to be banning and/or targeting Muslims. It's worth noting that Trump already said he'll make exceptions and give priority to Christians from those countries. He's far too much of a pussy to actually halt immigration from countries whos citizens have attacked Americans and only went after weaker countries he's not in business with and that don't sell us much oil. Watch what happens if he's forced to divest himself from his businesses, suddenly some more countries will be on that terrorist/Muslim ban list.

I'm with @Chairman_woo . YES, Hillary was the "lesser of two evils" option.

Maher and the rest are upset because they think that "lesser of two evils" is an overly simplistic take on the actual degree to which either of them would have actually been evil. Fair enough, sorta. Piers Morgan is essentially just arguing semantics while the big picture just sails over everyone's heads.

Trump is a buffoon. A bull in a china shop. YES, he's doing blatantly evil/stupid things. Subtlety is not his forte. When he does bad things, we're going to find out about them.

Hillary is a vastly more savvy politician. Machiavellian, one might say. I think there's a very real argument to be made that her track record of (barely) weaseling out of very questionable actions and generally getting away with stuff that has sunk lots of other politicians suggests that it might be reasonable to be quite afraid of what Hillary has done / could do that we wouldn't find out about.


I'm not pleased with either one of them being the President. But honestly, I think that it will likely be easier to overcome and repair the damage done by "big dumb animal" Trump than it would have been to track down and discover all the cunning little traps, pitfalls, and closed-door deals that a President Hillary could have got done.

"the argument followed"...

Things Jim Jefferies said:
"She wouldn't have a Muslim ban
Oh fuck off
Fuck off
It's a fucking Muslim ban
He said there was a Muslim ban, there's a Muslim ban
It's, k, this is what you do, this is what you do Piers, you say "he hasn't done this, he hasn't done that, he's not going to do all these things", give him a fucking chance mate, you know what I mean? 'Cause Hitler didn't kill The Jews on the first day, he worked up to it.
Not ridicu... if people got hysterical in Germany right away then it wouldn't of...
You just like, you just like that you won The Apprentice and have a famous friend mate, that's all you fucking like, that's all you like
I'm not losing my audience, am I losing it?
Fuck off."

Things Jim Jefferies didn't say: any coherent arguments.

It's the only argument Morgan warrants.

"Correct, "fuck off" is the retort, and proper retort when replying to a lying twat like him, the argument followed."

That preceded - not followed - "fuck off".

On top of that, it's not an argument.

Ok, then, just to destroy your contention that there was no argument offered AFTER "Fuck off"..."it's a fucking Muslim ban, he said there was a Muslim ban, it's a Muslim ban." Is just one of many arguments that followed.


Jesus fucking Christ, you Trump supporters are fucking impossible to have a discussion with, because when given a cogent argument against your claims, you consistently ignore it to focus on some insignificant, off topic bullshit, like "That proceeded-not followed-"Fuck off"", when cogent arguments both preceded and followed the excellent retort to his utter bullshit.

Lol. That's the funniest shit I've read all day.

Your and my definition of destroy must be very different.

It was YOUR contention that any argument "followed" rather than preceded. If you don't want to be held to a claim, don't make it. Funny, that's the same as any good atheist would argue.

I wrote "any coherent arguments". I was quite specific. His "arguments" are a rambling stream of consciousness with a few statements that don't support any ideas to form a coherent argument.

Now here's where you fucked up big time: "you Trump supporters". Get ready to eat a bag of dicks because you got that wrong. I'm not. Buy them here https://www.amazon.com/Bag-Of-Dicks-Sent-Anonymously/dp/B01GKEUY1Y

"when given a cogent argument" bwhahahahahaaha. Yeah, he's not cogent.

"against your claims" bwahahahaahahaa. What claims did I make (besides Jim Jefferies not presenting an argument)?

" you consistently ignore it to focus on some insignificant, off topic bullshit, like "That proceeded-not followed-"Fuck off"" Bwhahahahahaa. This doesn't cover your mistake. You made a claim. I held you to it and pointed out that even if I didn't hold you to it you'd still fail. You're the one focusing on that point.

"when cogent arguments both preceded and followed the excellent retort to his utter bullshit." Bwhahahaahahaa. Except they didn't. You can say it's a cogent argument but that doesn't make it true. FFS I provided the transcript - it's right above - with no coherent/cogent arguments in it. I'll give the concession here that your standard for cogent/coherent may be lower than mine. "the excellent retort" is not excellent. It's a great example of someone with not much to say. It's verbal diarrhoea of someone who can't immediately think of a good retort.

Get over it mate. Jim Jefferies is a loud mouthed verbally aggressive comedian who doesn't present any good arguments in this discourse. He's great at shutting down his opponents by cutting them off with vitriol and bullshit but that's about it.

Oh, and Piers Morgan is a dick. Lol, how handy, you can add him to the bag your eating.

This segment is so short that unless you go and watch the whole thing (which I haven't) you're basically making an educated guess about what they're even arguing about.

I don't know why you're so desperate for Jim to be right. Every argument against Trump and his policies is not automatically cogent, coherent, correct, etc., even if one hates him.

Lastly, Godwin's law. He loses.

PS - This is getting boring. Unless you can assure me that you're non-partisan, and follow through with it in your arguments, I'm not willing to further discuss this with a proverbial pigeon.

No, it wasn't. I said AN argument followed. If you want to be niggling, be correct. Arguments came before AND after. (Edit:ok, looking back, I did say "the argument followed" my mistake here, but not there, argument did follow. I did not intend that to mean the ONLY argument followed, just that one did.)

"He said it was a Muslim ban"is pretty understandable to me....as is "it is a Muslim ban". Is that somehow not coherent to you?

Whether you voted for him or not, whether you intend it or not, whether you like him or not, by defending this Trump (non) apologist and denying those statements are an argument against the claim that there's no Muslim ban, you are at least tacitly supporting Trump who's making the same argument in court, that argument being that his calling for and promising a Muslim ban in the campaign and now saying the travel ban is "keeping his campaign promises" in no way make it a Muslim ban (unless you are a room of far right leaners).

"Cogent" depends largely on the listener.

That's the claim, that he offered no argument.

I only addressed that point, when argument was offered, because you seemingly myopicly targeted what you thought was a mistake that made your point.

If I understood it and found it convincing, it's cogent....and I do.

I finally agree with something you said...in part....Jim Jefferies is a loud mouthed verbally aggressive comedian.
But, I think "He (Trump) called it a Muslim ban." is a cogent, coherent, and concise argument. Edit:so do the lawyers suing to stop the ban. ;-)

I watched it when it aired, the whole thing.
I'm not desperate, nor do I care a whit about Jim, I don't like him, he's as much an ass as Morgan, I care that a good argument against bullshit isn't discarded because you can't or won't grasp it. I never claimed he made the argument well, or that he didn't ramble, just that he offered an argument, it made sense, and it is applicable.

I don't recall who invoked Hitler first, but if I remember correctly, they both did in the full show. Since Jefferies came out later, it was probably Morgan before Jefferies made his appearance, but I can't be sure.

And PS- I hate Clinton almost as much as Trump. I supported Sanders, the only honest person that ran.

Yes, how about that, "the argument followed". (I've got a screen shot of that. It's now my wallpaper. Lol. Jk).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muphry's_law (I've done it before - and no doubt I'll do it again).

"Is that somehow above your comprehension level, so not coherent to you?" Yes, that's it. Clearly it's above my "comprehension level". Lol. So, have you got a clip showing Trump calling it a Muslim ban. Because I googled it and couldn't find one. Is there evidence that Muslim's are banned from the USA? I can't see any. I googled it but apparently the majority of Muslims in the world have no travel ban (it was a geographic ban, not a religious one). Apparently the Obama administration had already designated travel conditions on those seven countries and this is an extension of those conditions. http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2017/feb/07/reince-priebus/were-7-nations-identified-donald-trumps-travel-ban/

I don't dispute that the list is not well thought out (by either administration). I don't dispute that the majority religion affected is Islam. I do dispute that it is singularly a Muslim ban, because it's not. It bans everyone from those nations. If you want to dispute this fact, then please provide some evidence. Jim Jefferies got it wrong.

Where did I defend anyone? I called out Jefferies. I can't see any words where I defend anyone.

I didn't support or vote for anyone. I'm not an American citizen. I'm looking from the outside in - and that gives me a good perspective.

As I said, I did not mean the only argument. I should have been more clear. At least I can admit it.

Ha!!! Muphry was spot on. Mea culpa.
"Donald J Trump is calling for a complete and total shutdown of Muslims coming to the United States....."
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=viDffWUjcBA

Close enough, or do I need to find a video of him saying the words "Muslim ban"? From what I'm reading, any videos or statements he made with those words have been removed from his websites, so may be hard to find.

As I've said before, not banning ALL Muslims (yet) does not hide the clear intent any better than the targeted banning of Israelis hid the Jewish ban for some other countries.
Trump publicly stated that Christians from the "banned" countries, including Syria, would essentially be exempt and given preferential treatment, another legal indicator the ban is targeted at Muslims, not nationalities. I'll look to see if I can find a link to that.
http://time.com/4652367/donald-trump-refugee-policy-christians/

Obama never halted immigration from them, he implemented stringent vetting, but didn't revoke any visas like Trump, and extreme vetting has been the norm for years, it's not some new Trump idea requiring a travel ban until he figures out what's happening.

Saying he (Jim) didn't make an argument, when his argument is actually one of those offered in court against the ban, defends Trump's position, therefore him, intentionally or not.