[mike777]

Next up is the supreme court nominee. Predict whoever he puts up for the court will be vilified. The protests, marches, speeches, attacks will be huge compared with what we have seen up to today. Expect to hear how the nominee will be out to destroy the constitution and America. News reports and protesters will tell us how the nominee hates black people, brown people, women, gays, etc Expect abortion to be a huge issue.

Will the dems filibuster? Will even one democratic senator support? Will the reps destroy the filibuster forever?

[ldrews]

 barmar, on 2017-January-30, 14:46, said:

The risk isn't negligible, but it's certainly far lower than the administration is making it out to be, and far lower than other dangers that they don't indemnify against.

As was mentioned numerous times when Trump brought this issue up during the campaign, we already have very thorough vetting of refugees from the Middle East. There's no credible threat of terrorism from the people targetted by this action.

On the other hand, establishing anti-Muslim policies like this foments hatred of the US, and is likely to spur home-grown terrorists (not subject to any vetting).

So obviously the level of risk is a matter of opinion unless you have some credible data that suggests otherwise. And again, the thoroughness of vetting is a matter of opinion. And I would be interested in seeing the data that indicates that there is no credible threat from the proscribed countries, especially since previously the intelligence community declared otherwise.

Apparently (http://www.numberof....s-in-the-world/) there are about 50 "muslim" countries in the world. The proscribed countries number 7. Since there are 43 "muslim" countries not on the list it seems a stretch to call the proscribed list a "muslim ban". However, it is noteworthy that all of the countries on the list are, indeed, "muslim". This list was created under the Obama administration. So unless you are willing to assert that Obama was anti-muslim, then the list should be considered anti-terrorist, not anti-muslim.

[ldrews]

 barmar, on 2017-January-30, 10:26, said:

Not to mention Trump himself. When he signed this EO, didn't he say that it was intended to protect against radical Islamists?

Are you saying that radical Islamists represent all muslims, and therefore a protest against radical Islamists is a protest against muslims in general?
In other words, you are implying that all muslims are radical Islamists.

[mike777]

 ldrews, on 2017-January-30, 16:44, said:

So obviously the level of risk is a matter of opinion unless you have some credible data that suggests otherwise. And again, the thoroughness of vetting is a matter of opinion. And I would be interested in seeing the data that indicates that there is no credible threat from the proscribed countries, especially since previously the intelligence community declared otherwise.

Apparently (http://www.numberof....s-in-the-world/) there are about 50 "muslim" countries in the world. The proscribed countries number 7. Since there are 43 "muslim" countries not on the list it seems a stretch to call the proscribed list a "muslim ban". However, it is noteworthy that all of the countries on the list are, indeed, "muslim". This list was created under the Obama administration. So unless you are willing to assert that Obama was anti-muslim, then the list should be considered anti-terrorist, not anti-muslim.

at the very least the list seems to be anti radical muslim, anti radical jihadist for the next 90/120 days....I would love to see trump outreach to refugee muslims, etc from Syria, Iraq ...yes there is risk, there is a danger that a bad guy can sneak in but I think the reward of the new human capital, their sons, daughters and their sons and daughters will help make America great again.

[mikeh]

 ldrews, on 2017-January-30, 16:44, said:

So obviously the level of risk is a matter of opinion unless you have some credible data that suggests otherwise. And again, the thoroughness of vetting is a matter of opinion. And I would be interested in seeing the data that indicates that there is no credible threat from the proscribed countries, especially since previously the intelligence community declared otherwise.

Apparently (http://www.numberof....s-in-the-world/) there are about 50 "muslim" countries in the world. The proscribed countries number 7. Since there are 43 "muslim" countries not on the list it seems a stretch to call the proscribed list a "muslim ban". However, it is noteworthy that all of the countries on the list are, indeed, "muslim". This list was created under the Obama administration. So unless you are willing to assert that Obama was anti-muslim, then the list should be considered anti-terrorist, not anti-muslim.

I know it is too much to ask, but if only for the sake of novelty, could you at least make an effort to get your facts right.

Risk, as in the risk that any US resident would be killed by a refugee/visitor/immigrant from any of the proscribed countries can be at least estimated by looking back to see how many have been so killed over the recent past. Maybe since 9/11? Maybe since the invasion of Iraq?

let's be ultra cautious and go back to 1975. In the past 41 years, the total number of US residents killed in the US by anyone from these countries is........zero.

Wow.

The total killed by people from Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan......several thousand.


Hmmm....trump announced the executive order as being due to the events of 9/11. Maybe he chose the countries he chose because the thousands of muslims he could see, on television, demonstrating joyfully in New Jersey as the towers came down were waving flags from Yemen or Iran or....etc?

As for the list being from Obama's time in office...well, there was a list that expanded over time to be of these 7 countries, but the list wasn't of countries from which visitors or immigrants were banned. It was a list of countries where US citizens were cautioned to avoid and where, due to the nature of activities in those countries, those US residents wanting to visit were to be vetted....presumably in an attempt to reduce the flow of American wanna-be terrorists to those parts of the world. The Obama administration never enacted a ban such as trump has done.

Facts are horrible, pesky little things that can so disrupt a narrative...especially when the narrative is a concoction of fantasies and lies.

As an example of one such fantasy....I doubt it was actually a lie because I doubt that you even bothered to find out the facts so I can't accuse you of distorting the facts....the attack at a Quebec Mosque was carried out by a Quebecois....a non-muslim Quebecois is his name is any guide. His yelling Allah Akbar, if indeed he did, would have been an act of cruelty, maybe intended as mocking his victims.

Using the Quebec shooting as justification for trump's actions is so utterly lacking in logic as to render me incapable of coming up quickly with an appropriate analogy.

I know full well that I am wasting my time writing here, but even tho the right wing nutters are unable to recognize their own stupidity or mendacity, maybe there are a few people unaware of the true facts who might find the blatherings of the nutters to be persuasive. After all, few of us use outright lies when attempting to explain our point of view, so those of us who try to be honest can be taken in by the brazen liars. Trump rode this reality to victory....while a core of his supporters are true believers, there were nowhere near enough outright racists and bigots for him to win: he had to persuade a large middle ground, and his unremitting, constant lies ultimately wore people down.

A prime example of this happened this weekend. I was talking to an educated, thoughtful person who recognizes trump as a liar. However, what he went on to say chilled me to the bone.

He said that a healthy mind would doubt everything. Mainstream media reports about trump were to be doubted as much as what trump himself said or did.

This is the way it works. The constant lying is so outside our normal human experience that we tend to reject the truth that it is all, or almost all, lies. When each side calls the other a constant liar, some otherwise intelligent people start to doubt the honest side as much as they doubt the lying side, and now the centre is lost. There are no anchors to reality, there are only lies, and we lose the ability to make informed decisions and value-based choices.

It isn't that trump turns decent people into bigots and racists, and nationalists. It is that he creates doubt and uncertainty and fear. This in turn creates a yearning among many for a strong leader...a savior. Many who support trump...many who voted for him...felt that he lacked the character to be a good president, but he scored exceptionally highly with those who are attracted to authoritarianism. This includes most fundamental Christians, hence his winning the evangelical vote despite being a serial divorcer, assaulter of women, and never having seen a need to apologize to god for anything.

So lying, lying and lying are tools, altho my suspicion is that this is unconscious...he lies because truth to him is an irrelevancy.

Hence even tho this is a waste of time, I feel a need to call out some of his most egregious supporters.

[Winstonm]

 mikeh, on 2017-January-30, 17:29, said:

A prime example of this happened this weekend. I was talking to an educated, thoughtful person who recognizes trump as a liar. However, what he went on to say chilled me to the bone.

He said that a healthy mind would doubt everything. Mainstream media reports about trump were to be doubted as much as what trump himself said or did.

This is the way it works. The constant lying is so outside our normal human experience that we tend to reject the truth that it is all, or almost all, lies. When each side calls the other a constant liar, some otherwise intelligent people start to doubt the honest side as much as they doubt the lying side, and now the centre is lost. There are no anchors to reality, there are only lies, and we lose the ability to make informed decisions and value-based choices.

It isn't that trump turns decent people into bigots and racists, and nationalists. It is that he creates doubt and uncertainty and fear. This in turn creates a yearning among many for a strong leader...a savior. Many who support trump...many who voted for him...felt that he lacked the character to be a good president, but he scored exceptionally highly with those who are attracted to authoritarianism. This includes most fundamental Christians, hence his winning the evangelical vote despite being a serial divorcer, assaulter of women, and never having seen a need to apologize to god for anything.

So lying, lying and lying are tools, altho my suspicion is that this is unconscious...he lies because truth to him is an irrelevancy.

Hence even tho this is a waste of time, I feel a need to call out some of his most egregious supporters.

It is termed gaslighting

[mike777]

let's be ultra cautious and go back to 1975. In the past 41 years, the total number of US residents killed in the US by anyone from these countries is........zero.



wow this number really surprised me, so much so I kind of doubt the number is actually zero killed(drunk driving?) but ok. I kind of doubt we have good stats from 75 but anyway...we know americans have been killed outside of America from these countries. Of course none of the above invalidates your main point concerning the overall ban.


to be fair America is at war, a real shooting,killing war despite the fact my local news almost always buries it in the back pages or forgets about it at all. In war mistakes are often made ....this ban is one example. Now if you think the war is just fake news the ban seems if possible even more outrageous.



Iraq, Iran, Syria, Yemen, Sudan, Libya and Somalia

[Winstonm]

Sally Yates is an American hero.

[mike777]

 Winstonm, on 2017-January-30, 17:51, said:

Sally Yates is an American hero.

the cnn report leaves a lot to be desired. It says she has determined the order to be unlawful and the justice department will not defend it in court. there is no legal reasoning given to justify her decision, so at this point it looks like grandstanding or perhaps gaslighting based on early news reports. Hopefully a reasoned legal argument will be presented and debated.


http://www.cnn.com/2...tice/index.html

[mikeh]

 mike777, on 2017-January-30, 18:08, said:

the cnn report leaves a lot to be desired. It says she has determined the order to be unlawful and the justice department will not defend it in court. there is no legal reasoning given to justify her decision, so at this point it looks like grandstanding or perhaps gaslighting based on early news reports. Hopefully a reasoned legal argument will be presented and debated.


http://www.cnn.com/2...tice/index.html

There are, it seems to me, a number of very cogent legal arguments. Now, while I am a lawyer, I am no constitutional expert even in my own country and have no more than a layperson's knowledge of the intricacies of the legal issues involved here. However, I have read several articles, online, in which commentators, including some I respect highly (Dahlia Lithwick for one) set out some pretty convincing arguments. I haven't read the statutes and cases to which these commentators refer, and obviously it is possible that there is a good counter to some or all, but there is what a lawyer might call a prima facie case that the executive orders are illegal.

Bear in mind that the Acting AG of the USA is not some lightweight with an axe to grind, even tho trump's supporters will claim, and have already claimed, that this is a political act. Yates is a career prosecutor, who came to the Justice Department in 1989!

By raising the argument that she lacked legal justification you are doing exactly as I described my friend's thinking. Altho you recognize, I think, that trump acted egregiously, you automatically feel that any response is to be treated with equal skepticism.

Reality is not balanced equally between fact and fiction. Reality IS fact, and fiction is not. Fair and balanced is not, despite Fox's best efforts, accomplished by according such moral weight to a lie that we must treat its counter, truth, skeptically.

Finally, to expect anyone to lay out a detailed legal argument at a press conference is to fail to understand how the world works. The press room lectern is not where the arguments are made. Most journalists wouldn't understand the argument so would misdescribe it. Most editors would screw it up/cut it even if the journalist got it right, and most readers stop at the headline or the end of the first paragraph.

Yates is a hero. Not just an American hero. She stands for all of the traditions behind a liberal democracy...any nation of laws and not people.

She'll be fired by this time tomorrow but I hope her courage is remembered for as long as there are would-be tyrants and those who stand up for justice.

[mike777]

 mikeh, on 2017-January-30, 18:51, said:

There are, it seems to me, a number of very cogent legal arguments. Now, while I am a lawyer, I am no constitutional expert even in my own country and have no more than a layperson's knowledge of the intricacies of the legal issues involved here. However, I have read several articles, online, in which commentators, including some I respect highly (Dahlia Lithwick for one) set out some pretty convincing arguments. I haven't read the statutes and cases to which these commentators refer, and obviously it is possible that there is a good counter to some or all, but there is what a lawyer might call a prima facie case that the executive orders are illegal.

Bear in mind that the Acting AG of the USA is not some lightweight with an axe to grind, even tho trump's supporters will claim, and have already claimed, that this is a political act. Yates is a career prosecutor, who came to the Justice Department in 1989!

By raising the argument that she lacked legal justification you are doing exactly as I described my friend's thinking. Altho you recognize, I think, that trump acted egregiously, you automatically feel that any response is to be treated with equal skepticism.

Reality is not balanced equally between fact and fiction. Reality IS fact, and fiction is not. Fair and balanced is not, despite Fox's best efforts, accomplished by according such moral weight to a lie that we must treat its counter, truth, skeptically.

Finally, to expect anyone to lay out a detailed legal argument at a press conference is to fail to understand how the world works. The press room lectern is not where the arguments are made. Most journalists wouldn't understand the argument so would misdescribe it. Most editors would screw it up/cut it even if the journalist got it right, and most readers stop at the headline or the end of the first paragraph.

Yates is a hero. Not just an American hero. She stands for all of the traditions behind a liberal democracy...any nation of laws and not people.

She'll be fired by this time tomorrow but I hope her courage is remembered for as long as there are would-be tyrants and those who stand up for justice.

a few points in reply
1) I assume she is a brilliant lawyer and knows her stuff.
2) You assume wrong I don't assume she has no legal justification
3) ya she should lay out some details of a legal argument, not zero, put some at the podium, more in a paper, etc.
4) ya you are correct to say I am skeptical, have skepticism that the entire order is unlawful (parts perhaps), trump has a lot of power at times of war and banning countries for 90/120 days when americans many americans have been killed and harmed by citizens from those countries.....with that said I think it is a mistake of policy but perhaps not of law but may be a legal
5) I look forward to her legal reasoning and the response.
6) as always I appreciate reading your very well written posts
7) I hope she is not fired unless it is shown her response was based on her politics not the law


with all of the above said I hope and pray trump will open the doors of America wide to refuges from Syria and iraq

[hrothgar]

 ldrews, on 2017-January-30, 16:33, said:

Interesting. You must have me confused with someone else. I never told you that I moved to Mexico in order to minimize my taxes. Would you mind correcting your mistake?

You did state on these forums that you moved out of California to avoid paying taxes...

[Winstonm]

WaPo:

Quote

Student known for far-right sympathies charged in Quebec City mosque attack

[ldrews]

 hrothgar, on 2017-January-30, 19:52, said:

You did state on these forums that you moved out of California to avoid paying taxes...

Since I did not move from California to Mexico how is that relevant? And I do not remember ever stating that I moved from California to avoid paying taxes, although I commend anyone who does so. Please cite my statement.

[mike777]

 Winstonm, on 2017-January-30, 17:51, said:

Sally Yates is an American hero.

s



fired! sigh....amateurish the whole episode amateurish America is not more safer than it was a week ago and looks foolish for nothing

[cherdano]

Man, the internet was more fun back when cranky forgetful uncles didn't know how to use it.

 ldrews, on 2017-January-11, 19:28, said:

And if you raise taxes on the affluent citizens, don't you encourage them to move elsewhere, taking all of their tax revenue with them? (see California)

I moved my family and business out of California many years ago for that very reason.

[ldrews]

 cherdano, on 2017-January-30, 20:37, said:

Man, the internet was more fun back when cranky forgetful uncles didn't know how to use it.

Ahh, you are right, I did say that some time ago. I moved from California to Colorado in 1975. I found California taxes and regulations oppressive. I believe that Colorado is still in the USA.

I would recommend any family and/or business relocate from California. But that is just my personal opinion.

[ldrews]

 hrothgar, on 2017-January-30, 19:52, said:

You did state on these forums that you moved out of California to avoid paying taxes...

So, yes, in 1975 I did move my family and business from California to Colorado to escape what I felt were oppressive taxes and regulation. I did not move to Mexico until 2010 and not for tax reasons.

So you have made a mistake, a misstatement, and accused me of something that I did not do. Do you have the integrity to correct the record?

[mikeh]

 ldrews, on 2017-January-30, 20:48, said:

So, yes, in 1975 I did move my family and business from California to Colorado to escape what I felt were oppressive taxes and regulation. I did not move to Mexico until 2010 and not for tax reasons.

So you have made a mistake, a misstatement, and accused me of something that I did not do. Do you have the integrity to correct the record?

Hmmm....you, of all people, calling for an apology after someone gets a fact wrong. The irony is delicious

[Winstonm]

 mike777, on 2017-January-30, 20:32, said:

s



fired! sigh....amateurish the whole episode amateurish America is not more safer than it was a week ago and looks foolish for nothing

It took Nixon more than 4 years to get here. We can only hope that the impeachment of Trump is also on a comparatively fast track.