Truth is truth....and this is not truth, or is at least intentionally misleading.
As mentioned above, the parties totally switched positions with the Republican Southern strategy. She's either ignorant, or intentionally misleading.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy

What rich earn their money with "hard" work? Few if any, they more often make it by paying hard workers less than they are due, often by contract. (At least that's certainly true for many, including Trump)
Killing babies, nope. Embryos aren't babies. Babies can live outside a womb. >99.999% of abortions don't meet that requirement, and the few that do are only allowed to save the mother's life.
Oppressing business owners, nope, just stopping them from abusing their workers, customers, and environment. That only oppresses oppressors, and I'm more than fine with that considering how they act when unrestrained.
Allowing illegal immigrants in....nope, but offering far more work visas, absolutely. "Proper vetting" is meaningless, unless you agree to use the term as intended by the intelligence community, in which case democrats are totally on board...but not with a Muslim ban until Trump can figure something out, that's never....and totally unconstitutional.
Get rid of capitalism....did you see their candidate? Even Sanders didn't want that, but he was too hostile to unfettered capitalism for democrats....just duh.

Why do you see people mentioning the switch? Because you, and this woman, are trying to pretend it didn't happen....but it clearly, unequivocally, undeniably did. Take some American history and you'll learn.

Edit: what's funny is, had there been no southern strategy and swap of ideals as she and you imply, democrats would be your party, supporting all the right wing strategies you support.

There are far more 'common threads' between Daesh and the Bakers than there are with Daesh and the left.

Did that guy just say the Soviet Union funded nuclear protests world wide in the 80's? When they were dead broke, starving, and the union was dissolving? I'm pretty certain that would be news to my aunt and uncle who have run an anti-nuclear protest group since the early 70's.

John Guanadolo?!? Really? "Foremost terrorism expert"?!? Don't they mean "disgraced and fired ex FBI agent caught having numerous affairs, including with witnesses he was protecting, among numerous other complaints, most notably his rabid anti Muslim stances and actions but including coercion and extortion"?

Not really a surprise from people who believe in talking snakes, tout incestuous communities (Adam, Eve, and their progeny), and who worship a zombie, but still disappointing.

Surprised Harris isn't a bigger fan, seeing as they both view Islam in such a simplistic and myopic way and both have said largely dangerous things about Muslims.

Cool. Coming out of a baptist family I get it, even if i was never that extreme -- westboro... i knew some families sort of like them though... home schooled on the belief that the Bible is the ultimate framework for governing. Not too far off from the us versus them. Same family that taught an anti-evolution class for our youth group. *shudder*

I became an indignant atheist not long after leaving religion. Now, I embrace Took me many a long night hating on religious people.

Until I had a long conversation with a friend who was a microbiologist, observing evolution on a daily basis, and maintaining a healthy Christian perspective. (Well, at the time it was... now he is sort of Phelping me. It's really hard for me still, to accept religious people, even when almost everyone I know is -- many of whom will always judge me for who I am.)

I mostly enjoy the diversity among my Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Atheist, Buddhist, and Hindu brothers and sisters. They just need to respect my beliefs and recognize that I am not recruiting them and they are not recruiting me. Atheists are the worst at this.

As long as there is seperation of church and state. That is an important concept in maintaining a diverse nation open to dialog like she suggests.

Also, opening dialog with people only works if they reply back hahaha -- most of the angry internet people i know post across a wide array of websites and don't really return for replies that often.

It's amazing to see just how smooth and clean Putin's or "Russia's": "Coup O' America" is running, using empty-headed our power-hungry Republicans as the tools to make it work. (Yeah sure it's I don't believe this; but does it really matter when it is still turning OUT the same way?!)

Essentially just putting a person in each office that wants to tear it apart, so that they destroy America from the inside. Then put an administration on top that would run like a classic Dictatorship-lite. Right now our military branch and side branches--like the courts, taxes/money, infrastructure, etc... Are the only things that can actually respond and do jack-shit. Our country is running around like a chicken with its head chopped off.

Trump has NO idea what in the hell he is doing at all at the wheel. We ALL know this by now; if you don't agree on this you are absolutely lying to yourself. He has yet to make ONE announcement as President, that is actually--you know--presidential... Like after North Korea and it's missile test, then it's warning about Nuke use. Iran's proclamation. Russia's little boat fiasco (HHRrrmmm...Me Trump...Not Good!...)...

You could tell that Trump has absolutely no handle on anything at the last press briefing where all he did was bitch and moan, and didn't do anything useful at all. All he did was sit there and act like a spiteful little crybaby--Obama should've tried that out at the start when everybody called him a Muslim, non-citizen, the anti-christ, and whatever shit popped in their mouth.

Then we have the folks that say, "See, look the same thing happened to Obama too! So we are j-u-s-t-f-i-e-d!". Now that is the worst way to make a case for equivalency, ever...

What, did he promise to increase youtube's revenue?

Promised to build a wall and have mexicans pay for it - failed.
Promised to travel ban muslims - failed.
Promised to prosecute Clinton - failed.
Promised to get rid of Obamacare - now he's not sure.
Promised to deport all illegal immigrants - failed.
Promised climate change was a hoax and legislation would be rolled back - failed.
Promised to repeal same sex marriage - failed.
Said leaks were good and he hoped russia would leak against Clinton to the media. Then said leaks were terrible and all media was fake.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-37982000

Hasn't he reneged on or at least backed away from almost every single cornerstone promise he made? Or if you want to say he didn't mean those things literally, well then he can never 'deliver what he said' by definition.

Republicans need to start asking themselves what it would take for them to even consider the possibility that they've been lied to and manipulated.

Edit: If you want to say it's not fair to judge Trump's promises because he has been opposed, then you admit that it is not fair to judge Obamacare because Obama was opposed.

ok,first off?
this is heritage foundation,a right wing think tank.
this by itself is not terribly damning.

however.

bridgette gabriel is a spokeswoman for the FRC:family research center.

the FRC,along with james dobson's "focus on the family" ,were both funded with seed money from the families of betsy devos and erik prince,the amway pyramid scheme dynasty.

so what enoch?
what's the big deal?

well,when you understand the underlying religious philosophies of the the devos/prince family.you know that they are christian supremacists who wish to install an amercian government that adheres to "christian" laws and "christian" values.

yeah..you know that whole "sharia" law that has rightwingers pissing themselves? same thing,but this is with JESUS,so it has to be good,right?

and what this gabriel woman does is utter revisionist history to fit her own narrative and agenda.i am talking fucking blatant,but since most americans don't even know their OWN history,never mind the history of a religion they profess to love and worship,they just lap this womans bullshit up as if it were spoken from god's own lips.

because let us be frank,and clear.

christian right wingers literally piss themselves at the thought of muslims.and this woman hand feeds that fear.

this woman is a fucking disgrace.
9/11!
benghazi!

this woman feeds on your ignorance.
stop being a fucking tool to demagogues like this fucking twat waffle.

If 300000000 were dedicated to the destruction of western civilization, it would be destroyed today.

Her contention that the peaceful majority is irrelevant means we must be in fear of and at war with every group we could name, because they all have radicals. That's simply asinine.

She is really angry about this question.
There are MANY Islamic peace movements, contrary to their implications that this single woman is it. Just a few below.

Islamic Peace Movement UK, more widely known as Islamic Movement UK or IMUK, is the largest Islamic organisation in the UK.[1] It was formed in 1989 in Leeds by Mohammed Kilyam

Hazrat Mirza Masroor Ahmad (Mir-za Mas-roor Ah-mad) is the fifth Khalifa (Caliph) of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community.

Spearhead by the Muslim Peace Coalition, 100 New York Imams in the spring of 2011 stood together to issue an historic statement that established the link between wars at home and wars abroad.

You would have been so fearful at my wedding: There were Asians AND Muslims!! And some of the people were both Asian AND Muslim simultaneously! A couple Jews, too. (And scary college educated Atheists!!) Whoa. I must live in a strange and terrifying world, Bob! Oh myyy Godddd, what will happen to society with our kind free and roaming America?!?!?!?!!!!! AAAHHHHH LOL

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.

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.

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.

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.

"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.