Wrath of Dagon

I had just posted this link in the politics thread: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/444839/washington-aims-destroy-steve-bannon-hysterical-character-assassination No, but it's the most egregious. Others vary in validity, but I didn't feel like going through all of them in detail.

Hmm, turns out you can reply in the wrong thread.

Who has a pro-fascist advocacy history and what's your evidence?

Democrat operatives try to take down Steve Bannon: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/444839/washington-aims-destroy-steve-bannon-hysterical-character-assassination

Asian tourists stay away from France as concern over violence rises: http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/02/13/coachload-korean-tourists-robbed-attack/ Russia is a safer destination, lol

Is this source approved by the brain trust? http://heatst.com/culture-wars/angela-merkel-will-expel-asylum-seekers-from-germany-as-support-for-muslim-migrants-collapses/

Funny, I heard that just about word for word on NPR today. No disclaimer about it being an opinion either. And that was after they spent about 15 minutes justifying rioting "One man's riot is another man's protest".

America needs a new Liberal Party: https://ricochet.com/409758/america-needs-liberal-party/ So a party consisting entirely of a handful of right-wing intellectuals then? Edit: Meanwhile, in spite of being a constant failure, Trump got all of his cabinet nominees confirmed so far, unlike Obama: http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/democrats-are-losing-their-war-with-trump/ Thanks for doing away with filibuster Harry Reid!

Congress already passed the relevant law back in the 50's, which the comedic 9th circuit panel didn't even consider. EO was submitted to the DOJ legal counsel and was found legal. The 9th circuit panel already overturned the Congress' finding of the terrorist danger from the 7 listed countries, so they could equally as well overturn any law Congress passes on the subject.

There was an acting AG. The whole premise is that it's a temporary emergency measure until visa approval process can be made more secure.

Interesting: https://www.yahoo.com/news/justice-kennedys-opinion-2015-case-looms-u-travel-163810427.html I predict the reasoning in the link I posted earlier about campaign speech will prevail on Kennedy.

Yes, your sneering obviously proves that you are right.

Only would be valid criticism if Trump quoted out of context. Edit: And Wittes' tweet doesn't even characterize his own article correctly: https://www.lawfareblog.com/how-read-and-how-not-read-todays-9th-circuit-opinion

All he has to do is make it clear it doesn't apply to US residents, and the entire ruling becomes invalid.

Certainly Trump is not very careful with his facts, but the "fact checkers" are also biased and not above making up stuff. For example WP assumes Trump was talking about some fake story about Kuwait, but he was more likely responding to stories like this: https://www.zawya.com/mena/en/story/Dubais_police_chief_praises_Trumps_travel_ban-ZAWYA20170201073246/

Should probably come up with a better name.

Article arguing that Garland would've been better for Trump on this issue than Gorsuch: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/article/2614444 What the author misses is that liberal judges are fine with executive overreach if it benefits liberal causes, but will stop even legitimate exercise of executive power if they don't like the result.

Trump certainly had a period in his campaign when he was flailing. Then finally he was convinced to get more or less on message. Trouble is right now even the people who run the campaign are off message themselves. They all need to get their crap together soon. As far as computers, I didn't mean the new AI stuff, and humans are still better at it for now.

lol , and I thought you were at least a decent lawyer. Edit: btw, Congress also determined that those 7 countries present a terrorism danger. So the court not only usurped presidential authority but also congressional one.

One thing that makes humans superior to computers is to be able to make decisions on incomplete information. Everyone does that every day in their normal life. I'm not saying it's not better to have complete information, but it's not usually possible.

I really don't know what you're talking about. The judges had to decide if the states' case has enough merit to be likely to succeed, they decided that it does, but their reasoning is nonsensical and unprecedented. Edit: Btw, I don't think the entire EO is overturned like everyone seems to believe. So far as I know they're still not issuing any new visas.

Then how do they know the case is likely to succeed on its merits? It's quite obvious the case has no merit.

@Hurlshot Trump has the executive power, the judges just stole it from him, has nothing to do with who is more knowledgeable. The judges are not objective, it's been obvious for a long time that liberal judges simply decide for whatever they'd like the outcome to be, the hell with the law. Was just about to post this anyway, explains one reason why this decision is so stupid and dangerous: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/02/09/the-9th-circuits-dangerous-and-unprecedented-use-of-campaign-statements-to-block-presidential-policy/?utm_term=.3ed5dd6ad286 Edit: They don't have to justify it, we have separation of powers, the President doesn't need to have his decisions approved by the court. All the court can rule on is whether the order is legal or not, there's no requirement anywhere for the President to prove that there's a real threat.

Trump knows the essence of things, but he's fuzzy on details. There's plenty of evidence that there's massive voter fraud, but no hard numbers because no one ever tried or was allowed to get them. Creamer bragged on video tape about massive voter fraud, and he's been to the White House some 350 times. Obama himself sent a very clear signal to illegals that no one will check if they committed fraud by voting. When Stein did her stupid recount in Michigan they couldn't even recount most of Detroit because a huge number of precincts had a mismatch between voters signed in and ballots cast; and it just goes on and on. But because we have almost no vote integrity measures and the Democrats fight them tooth and nail, no one can quantify how much fraud actually does occur.

It's the court that acted unconstitutionally in this case. It's not for them to determine whether there's a security threat or not, that's the President's job. Both the Constitution and the law are crystal clear on this.