@ss - where did you ever hear a story like that about the IT dept being escorted into the street for a phone call?
It's a game of telephone, just like this thread.
There was speculation by a member of a right-leaning think tank that the recording devices had been turned off. That story took off. The original speaker then clarified that it was speculation, and that he had no specific knowledge one way or the other...or something to that effect, but the story had already made it around the world (looks like it made it to Turkey before the clarification).
However, I would also note that Sitten said "escorted off premises", which SZ then changed to "into the street". So, why is anybody surprised that stories explode? Telephone is an old kids game, but no less telling for it being a kids game. Stories mutate and morph over time.
Supposedly he has a law practice where he works nearly exclusively helping refused immigrants get around the immigration laws.
Sigh...I guess this is what you are trying to distort:
4) He's done pro bono work with refugees
During his confirmation hearing, Republican Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah noted that Robart had done pro bono legal work and had represented refugees during his career.
"He has been active in the representation of the disadvantaged through his work with Evergreen Legal Services and the independent representation of Southeast Asian refugees," Hatch said.
Robart was confirmed unanimously by the Senate.
I guess with some people any information contradicting their worldview is a distortion.
For a "judge" he seems to have a clear political bias. Trump has a lot of problems, not the least of which being Wall Street turning the screws to obstruct him at every turn:
In addition to Apple, Facebook and Google, major technology names that signed the brief included Microsoft, Uber, Twitter, Airbnb, Intel and Snap, the parent of Snapchat. A few names from outside the technology field, like Levi Strauss, the jeans maker, and Chobani, a yogurt company, also signed the brief. Separately, a group of prominent Democrats also protested the ban in a court filing.
It seems pretty clear what the agenda is here: screwing American workers.
I guess with some people any information contradicting their worldview is a distortion.
For a "judge" he seems to have a clear political bias. Trump has a lot of problems, not the least of which being Wall Street turning the screws to obstruct him at every turn:
Oh the irony...the precedent the judge used came from a Texas ruling based on republicans trying to affect Obama's immigration changes:
It is somewhat unusual for a district judge to issue an order that affects the entire country, but Robart, who was nominated by President George W. Bush and has been on the bench since 2004, said it was necessary to follow Congress’s intention that “the immigration laws of the United States should be enforced vigorously and uniformly.”
He was quoting from a 2015 appeals court ruling that had blocked Obama’s executive action that would have made it easier for undocumented immigrants in this country to remain. It was never implemented because of legal challenges.
The bigger point is that rulings by judges are not like postings on the internet...or tweets. They don't wake up in the morning and say whatever they are feeling at the moment. There's always going to be some legal foundation for a ruling. These tend to be pretty heavy going, but without them, all people are arguing is opinion.
@ss - where did you ever hear a story like that about the IT dept being escorted into the street for a phone call?
It is good to ask me these questions, and reaffirm the gut feelings I had that made me almost delete that paragraph. At the time I was writing it, my media feeds were positively swarmed with CAPITAL LETTER RED ALERT reports. Now that it's been a few days, things look more sane. This is my primary gripe about internet-based media.
I did some research on the claim the call was not recorded. That claim comes from "inside sources". However, while plenty of websites assure me "left-wing tears are unfounded, the transcript was released", I couldn't find a transcript and none of these sites felt it worth their time to link me to it. Snopes, the most reliable source I found, listed it as "unproven" on the basis that:
It's not a requirement that all such calls are recorded.
Some sources say it was "definitely" recorded.
The recording has been claimed to "not exist", but there is no information as to why.
The security staff seems to be overstated, too. When I looked today, I couldn't find much except a report of firing three people who seemed to have been caught doing some things that should've got them fired.
So at the time, based on the information at hand, we did have two nuggets: "There's no recording of the call with Putin" and "a handful of WH information security staff were fired at almost the same time". With no other context, they both sound pretty bad. With the context given by a few days, the IT staff firings make sense.
I'm still not put at ease by the lack of a recording of the Putin call. It'd be very easy to deflect suspicion by saying, "We discussed sensitive details about our military efforts against ISIS, I'm sorry but I can't reveal these details to you." Instead what we have is one reliable source with, "Oh, it was nothing of consequence. I'm sure the recording's somewhere!" and somebody's anonymous source saying, "It doesn't exist because it wasn't deleted."
Which is sort of like saying, "If you look at the layers on the PDF of Obama's published birth certificate it's CLEAR it's been altered." For 5 years straight. I can't help but say I don't trust Trump, and he doesn't project an aura that instills my trust.
I agree with all the points he made, except that he mentioned that his liberal views are more championed by conservatives now, which isn't the case. The conservatives are entirely willing to have the government push causes into peoples lives, as long as it is the causes they want. It's really just a choice between which stick is used to club you.
It was just his opinion - although I know he can't be talking about the RNC-of-old super conservatives. I know for years now I felt disconnected from the popular-Tea-Party-like rep's - maybe we have a new fiscal conservative mixing with a more social liberal group. And this guy is feeling a connection to that.
*** Read the sticky in the DB forum about how to get your question answered quickly!! ***
Please remember to rate posts! Rate any post you find helpful - even in old threads! Use the link to the left - "Rate this Post".
I liked the old Rudman-conservative fiscal policies. I've always been a bit of a deficit hawk. It bugged the heck out of me that the Republicans would preach that line throughout the 90s, then, as soon as they got power, they abandoned it for borrow and spend behavior.
I liked the old Rudman-conservative fiscal policies. I've always been a bit of a deficit hawk. It bugged the heck out of me that the Republicans would preach that line throughout the 90s, then, as soon as they got power, they abandoned it for borrow and spend behavior.
Funny how executive orders aren't bad and don't bypass congress anymore...I guess "Emperor Trump" doesn't sell that well to their base.
Which EO do you most have a problem with? The visa restrictions from the 7 countries? That was Obama law simply "executed" as the "executive branch" should.
Or about taking the funding that has been on hold for part of the wall and actually pushing that payment forward?
This is exactly what EO's are for. Not to make new law - to execute law.
Please tell me which EO you have the most issue with - the one that makes new law, I guess, would make the most sense to debate.
*** Read the sticky in the DB forum about how to get your question answered quickly!! ***
Please remember to rate posts! Rate any post you find helpful - even in old threads! Use the link to the left - "Rate this Post".
Which EO do you most have a problem with? The visa restrictions from the 7 countries? That was Obama law simply "executed" as the "executive branch" should.
This requires such a fundamental misunderstanding of the Obama law, I have to question if we're looking at the same thing.
Two known terrorists were arrested in Bowling Green. It was found they entered via the refugee program. Obama issued a specific, narrow order banning all refugees from Iraq until a better vetting process could be designed. Note there was no mention of religion, and it was focused on the one country from which we had clear evidence of "terrorist abuse".
There's a reason liberals didn't get their panties in a wad about it: it was Constitutional, and it addressed a very clear threat for which there was visible, recorded evidence.
Trump's order cherry-picks seven Muslim-majority countries. They happen to be the Muslim-majority countries in which he owns no business interests. He carefully excluded the Muslim-majority countries where he does have business interests. The basis of this tightening of immigration is "national security". But:
The law is done for "national security" and, presumably, our safety.
It restricts entry to persons who are already naturalized citizens and, therefore, have passed the "extreme vetting" he wants them to go through.
The grand total of terrorists who have immigrated from the named countries is 0. Trump assures us they're "flooding in". But he hasn't arrested any, or found any, or said anything other than that we should "trust him".
Three of the countries he graciously excluded have been found, by Congress, to be at least marginally responsible for supporting the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Trump offers no explanation as to why these countries are "safer". "Trust me."
An exemption was made to this law for people who can pass some handwavy "Christianity test."
I can name six churches in my county that'll baptize me after a weekend of training. There's not a lot of Christianity to learn.
The past six months or so have provided several incidents of domestic terrorism perpetrated by Christian extremists.
So, let's compare notes.
Obama's law responded to the arrest of two terrorists by suspending travel from their country of origin so we could change the process to prevent more terrorists from making it in.
Trump's law responds to Trump's gut feelings by suspending travel from countries who have never posed a threat to us and allowing exemptions for:
People who have paid Trump money.
The only Muslim countries who have demonstrably sent terrorists to America since 1975.
The only religion that's attacked Americans in the past 8 months or so. (This is the statistic where you might nail me with innaccuracy, the last Muslim-motivated attack I remember was the Boston Marathon but there's been a plethora of Christian terrorists since then. I'm sorry that there's so many mass killings in the US I can't keep track of which one happened for which reason.)
The only things these two EOs have in common is "they affect immigration", unless you're talking about a completely different Obama law that I'm totally ignorant of.
"These countries were already named as "countries of concern" after a law passed by a Republican-led Congress in 2015 altered a visa admissions programme."
So the law was signed by Obama - naming those 7 countries.
I had already heard this when the EO was first announced. Trump used a list of countries bless during the Obama admin on purpose - so as to not get picked on for the list of countries.
Those countries do not give their people very sound visas.
If any of my statements are true then your whole post is based on fake news - right?
*** Read the sticky in the DB forum about how to get your question answered quickly!! ***
Please remember to rate posts! Rate any post you find helpful - even in old threads! Use the link to the left - "Rate this Post".
If any of my statements are true then your whole post is based on fake news - right?
Well, no, of course not. Perhaps you were being facetious, but that's the whole position: If any one point I make is true, then ALL the points you make must be false. That's the kind of argument we're at in the country.
He was building an entire narrative on the choice of the countries - how they haven't sent any terrorist who had successful attacks - how the list of countries was so poor.
His entire post is garbage if the 7 countries were part of an existing law and all the EO happens to be is to carry out enforcement.
I am so sick of false narratives. You cannot say something like "the bust of MLK was removed" and then discuss "why Trump would do this". The bust was never moved. You cannot continue a Trump-is-racist-narrative since the basis of the debate is false.
*** Read the sticky in the DB forum about how to get your question answered quickly!! ***
Please remember to rate posts! Rate any post you find helpful - even in old threads! Use the link to the left - "Rate this Post".
See, I like this style of arguing with me. That's a reasonable article. It doesn't answer all of my concerns, but to get the answers I want I'd have to dig into some historical context for 2015 I don't care to research. These nuggets still tug at me:
Obama's law applied to people trying to visit the US for 90 days without acquiring a visa. I've got to say that sounds like a good deal if you're trying to sneak in as a terrorist and expect it to be a one-way journey. Why'd Obama pick the countries he picked, and exclude some of the countries most likely to abuse it? I can think of a lot of reasons similar to why Trump might lift the list without modification and they're all printed on green paper, but I can also think of some reasonable reasons that'd take a kind of research I don't know how to do. Whatever.
What bugs me is Trump's expanded this law to even include green card holders, requiring them to go through a vague process to get back in "on a case-by-case basis". This is a severe restriction of citizen liberties, and I want the government to provide proof of a credible threat. Obama did his Iraq restriction in response to arresting two terrorists. Trump's just sitting up there saying "trust me", and I'm sorry, I can't name a politician I trust that far. I heard so many damn paraphrases of "those who would give up liberty for safety..." during Obama's term, and that's what this feels like. It's not OK to take away citizen rights without a concrete, credible threat. Trump can't even drump up a lie like, 'The CIA has reason to believe some individuals have passed the vetting process'. Instead he chooses "people are just pouring in". They ought to be easy to arrest then, right?
It's very similar to his claim of 3 million instances of voter fraud. We can't find any independent research groups that would be immensely famous and enter American history for revealing widespread corruption. We just have to trust that somehow Trump has more information than those researchers. Hell no. He's a salesman AND a politician. If he reads me the time off a clock I'm going to double-check.
I don't trust him, and I won't cede any citizen's rights because he "has a hunch". I trust data, the kind of data my taxes pay for and are supposed to be reported to me in plain sight so I can compare them to his interpretation. So far, he's making every move he can to either dismantle, defund, or gag any organization in charge of presenting me with that data. I "have a hunch" this salesman wants to sell me on a big fat lie. I can't argue with data, but I can argue forever with opinion.
"These countries were already named as "countries of concern" after a law passed by a Republican-led Congress in 2015 altered a visa admissions programme."
So the law was signed by Obama - naming those 7 countries.
Not quite. If you follow the links you posted, the law names exactly two countries: Iraq and Syria. It also contains provisions for maintaining a list, and how countries should be added/removed from the list. The 7 countries are on that list. Oddly, the list I found included some other interesting countries, such as China, but I believe it was a different list with a similar name. Countries of Concern, just a different kind of concern.
What the article also points out is that the law is about exemptions from the Visa Waiver Program. So, while he did find a basis somewhat in law for the 7 countries, the basis is that of a list that is neither specific nor static. It's a malleable list. The one point to note is that it doesn't appear that Trump did alter the list, or even had time to, but the list is about waiving the requirements for a visa (mastercard is apparently still required). So, Trump may have a basis for the list of countries, but he sure went overboard when he turned the law excluding them from a waiver into a ban.
Of course he went extreme - that is what his supporters who voted for him expected.
He soundly picked a list of countries from a prior list from what I can tell. And that list of countries is getting all the attention.
That is all I was trying to find a link to - that he did not himself or his cabinet cherry pick any countries.
And just to step back - those 7 countries do a very poor job right now of supplying a paper trail for their citizens. I can see why they are on some kind of list. With that said I can leave the country selection off the table.
The alphabet networks are all in a tizzy over this being a ban on a particular religion.
I find that a false narrative - solely used to incite the liberal base.
I could prefer a proper debate in the press over the details - as you spoke about (green cards, waivers - all that jazz).
When I heard the DHS or TSA guy discuss the EO he made it to be like it was just a modification to what is done for those 7 countries and that travel restriction changes were par for the course. That thousands of waivers were written anyway. I'll see if I can find the footage of that presser.
*** Read the sticky in the DB forum about how to get your question answered quickly!! ***
Please remember to rate posts! Rate any post you find helpful - even in old threads! Use the link to the left - "Rate this Post".
Democrats supporting the globalist, corporatist, neoliberal Clinton wing of the DNC that is barely distinguishable from Republican neocons aside from positions on "social issues" (i.e. the candy used to lure voters into their blue windowless van).
Democrats who really don't care for the Clinton wing, but just as in 1992 lacked the guts to do anything about it and will only vote Democratic.
Democrats who refuse to tolerate any more of the Clinton wing.
Republicans who can't stand Trump, supporting the globalist, corporatist, neocon Reagan wing of the RNC that is barely distinguishable from Democratic neoliberals aside from positions on "social issues" (the candy used to lure voters into their red windowless van).
Republicans who don't like Trump, but will only vote Republican.
Republicans who refuse to tolerate any more of the Reagan wing.
Those seriously supporting unelectable 3rd party candidates, those pushed into it out of frustration, and those who either wrote in Mickey Mouse or stayed home.
The "winners" of 2016 are those in groups 3 and 6 above. If you cast aside the "social issues" they probably have a great deal in common, and likely decided the election.
Everyone else is a butt-hurt loser for whom there isn't enough Ben-Gay in the world, though group 5 might be slightly less disgruntled than the others.
The alphabet networks are all in a tizzy over this being a ban on a particular religion.
I find that a false narrative - solely used to incite the liberal base.
The tizzy is because Rudy said that he was told to implement a Muslim ban in such a way that it would pass muster. A straight up ban on any religion would violate the Constitution, so it's a reasonable thing to be in a tizzy about.
As I have stated before, this administration has fired up the white supremacists like no administration in decades, and the rise in hate crimes is impressive....not in a good way. If the administration is doing something blatantly against the Constitution, which also happens to apply a filter against a group Trump stated he'd discriminate against back in the campaign, are we really supposed to pretend that fig leaf doesn't cover anything nasty?
Everyone else is a butt-hurt loser for whom there isn't enough Ben-Gay in the world, though group 5 might be slightly less disgruntled than the others.
Just as a public service announcement: Anybody who thinks that Ben-Gay is suitable to use on butt-chafing (also known as Cowboy Crotch, a common hiking ailment), should be aware that it is NOT a good idea. I'm not speaking from direct experience, but I was present, and it was amusing.
Democrats supporting the globalist, corporatist, neoliberal Clinton wing of the DNC that is barely distinguishable from Republican neocons aside from positions on "social issues" (i.e. the candy used to lure voters into their blue windowless van).
Democrats who really don't care for the Clinton wing, but just as in 1992 lacked the guts to do anything about it and will only vote Democratic.
Democrats who refuse to tolerate any more of the Clinton wing.
Republicans who can't stand Trump, supporting the globalist, corporatist, neocon Reagan wing of the RNC that is barely distinguishable from Democratic neoliberals aside from positions on "social issues" (the candy used to lure voters into their red windowless van).
Republicans who don't like Trump, but will only vote Republican.
Republicans who refuse to tolerate any more of the Reagan wing.
Those seriously supporting unelectable 3rd party candidates, those pushed into it out of frustration, and those who either wrote in Mickey Mouse or stayed home.
The "winners" of 2016 are those in groups 3 and 6 above. If you cast aside the "social issues" they probably have a great deal in common, and likely decided the election.
Everyone else is a butt-hurt loser for whom there isn't enough Ben-Gay in the world, though group 5 might be slightly less disgruntled than the others.
You forgot #8
People who can try and simplify a very complex subjct into something they can be opinionated about...
The alphabet networks are all in a tizzy over this being a ban on a particular religion.
Here's the thing about that: IT'S UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
I'm very disillusioned right now. The sources I trust have lied to me and made me look a fool multiple times over in this thread. This is very bad for me, and it's humbling. But.
I know what the First Amendment says. And it's just as illegal to say "No Christian can immigrate into America, seeing as at least a dozen US citizens were murdered in the name of Christ in the past six months" as it is to say "Muslims can't immigrate to America because I'm afraid of them".
That's how the Constitution works. If what you want is against it, good luck talking 2/3 of states into ratifying an amendment. The last time that happened, it was to give Congress the power to approve its own pay raises. The GOP's almost got enough strength to pull that off. If it happens, all I have to say is that my Christ forgives your Christ. But He won't forgive you.
Last edited by Sitten Spynne; Feb 6th, 2017 at 11:41 PM.
Just as a public service announcement: Anybody who thinks that Ben-Gay is suitable to use on butt-chafing (also known as Cowboy Crotch, a common hiking ailment), should be aware that it is NOT a good idea. I'm not speaking from direct experience, but I was present, and it was amusing.
Excellent point. It can even require some leather to bite down on to apply neutral antibiotic ointment in a severe case.
Which EO do you most have a problem with? The visa restrictions from the 7 countries? That was Obama law simply "executed" as the "executive branch" should.
Or about taking the funding that has been on hold for part of the wall and actually pushing that payment forward?
This is exactly what EO's are for. Not to make new law - to execute law.
Please tell me which EO you have the most issue with - the one that makes new law, I guess, would make the most sense to debate.
That isn't what I said at all, as you are always so quick to point out about your posts. I said, and only said, "Funny how executive orders aren't bad and don't bypass congress anymore...". For years republicans whined, cried, and pulled their hair because "Emperor Obama" bypassed the congress. The hypocrites aren't saying a word now...
Last edited by TysonLPrice; Feb 7th, 2017 at 09:31 AM.
He was building an entire narrative on the choice of the countries - how they haven't sent any terrorist who had successful attacks - how the list of countries was so poor.
His entire post is garbage if the 7 countries were part of an existing law and all the EO happens to be is to carry out enforcement.
I am so sick of false narratives. You cannot say something like "the bust of MLK was removed" and then discuss "why Trump would do this". The bust was never moved. You cannot continue a Trump-is-racist-narrative since the basis of the debate is false.
As you could say 'past performance isn't necessarily a predictor of future activity'.
I'm also sick of the bellyaching. The constant sniveling about how racist, misogynist, any other -ist republicans and/or white people are. The perpetual victimhood straw-man arguments.
[cue the 'you did it too!' argument against Obama, along with the rioting, looting and childish 'sit in' behavior that we all conveniently forgot to do - oh, too late].
"Ok, my response to that is pending a Google search" - Bucky Katt. "There are two types of people in the world: Those who can extrapolate from incomplete data sets." - Unk. "Before you can 'think outside the box' you need to understand where the box is."
I feel this country has been largely complacent for decades. I'm encouraged by seeing people out in the streets. Democracy shouldn't be a thing left to other people. We SHOULD be debating. We SHOULD be protesting. We SHOULD care enough to take action, whether it is donating time, money, blood, plasma, or BalmX (to those who misuse BenGay). I don't feel that people in the US have been sufficiently involved in their government at federal, state, or local levels, for the most part. It's hardly a government of the people or by the people when only a small minority (he' Italian, in case you were wondering which minority, short though he is) are actually taking part on a regular basis.
An obscure body in the SK system. The inhabitants call it Earth
Posts
7,902
Re: It's about time!
I sense this thread has run its course
Personally I think it's great to see a bit of decent debate going on. We haven't had that in Chit Chat for a while. And, while we may disagree on the substance, folks have managed to keep things pretty civil.
It's just a shame this thread didn't start in World Events. I'd love to see that forum get some life breathed into it again.
If there's one thing Trump's good for, it's getting people engaged.
The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter - Winston Churchill
Hadoop actually sounds more like the way they greet each other in Yorkshire - Inferrd
Given that Trump's already applied for re-election and his campaign has technically started, I think it's only fair that we can't appoint a SCOTUS nominee during campaign season.
Really the addendum to that should've been my real prediction:
Trump's going to nominate someone with a questionable history, it'll be connected to racism, Goldman Sachs, one of his children, a mysterious child gifted with powers of healing adopted from a Russian orphanage, or he may even go the extra mile and just appoint David Duke. Whatever. It doesn't really affect the outcome.
The Democrats are going to resist, using the same tactics as the GOP used to block Obama's nominations. The GOP is going to portray them as treasonous scoundrels and find new ways to procedurally dismantle Congressional ability to disrupt nomination of a SCOTUS position. Ted Cruz is going to forget every word he's ever said and insist any Congressman who has ever blocked a nomination should be put to death immediately. I really hope some listening deity finds it amusing to implement that as canon.
Meanwhile there's going to be a storm of media surrounding the nominee, including fabricated facts that they're a saint capable of healing the poor and that they're the worst racist ever and even Hitler was disgusted by them. In interviews, they'll drop some accidental statement about "their corporate sponsors", but it'll be brushed aside as irrelevant and fake news from a network that edited the footage. He'll kiss a baby. The baby will immediately grow horns and die six days later.
This will go on for a long time and eventually the nomination will be accepted, amid calls that there are "no men of courage" in Congress, etc.
Fast-forward 20 years or so, when there's majority Democrat power and some contentious SCOTUS nominee with a shady past of "healing the sick" and "donating money to the poor" comes up, GOP is going to threaten armed revolt and insist "Congress doesn't have enough ability to protect SCOTUS from dangerous nominees". Laugh track. Fade out.
Originally Posted by szlamany
