Politics 2017

[Gromnir]

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/reality-check-many-of-trump%E2%80%99s-early-vows-will-never-actually-happen/ar-AAmiJF4?li=AA5a8k&ocid=spartanntp

 

looking more and more as if Gromnir were prophetic

 

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/88086-us-election-2016-part-iii/?p=1828131

 

HA! Good Fun!

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

I blame Stalinism for this.

[Malcador]

I blame Stalinism for this.

We must create a Leftist registry

 

This travel ban is asinine, if only for the apparent lack of thought in the implementation

[Wrath of Dagon]

Time when Teen Vogue is your example of good journalism

 

http://www.teenvogue.com/story/donald-trumps-immigration-ban-excludes-countries-business-ties?mbid=social_twitter

 

Yesterday (January 27), President Donald Trump signed an executive order banning immigration from seven countries, all of which are predominantly Muslim. The countries in question are Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia and Yemen. During the signing, President Trump proclaimed, "I am establishing new vetting measures to keep radical Islamic terrorists out of the United States of America."

However, over the past four decades, there have been no fatal attacks on American soil that were orchestrated from immigrants from any of those seven banned countries. Additionally, according to a report from the Cato Institute, no Americans have been killed in the past 15 years by Muslim Americans with family backgrounds in any of those countries. And it has been noted that zero of the 19 hijackers on 9/11 were from any of those seven countries. The report from the Cato Institute concluded that Trump's ban "will have virtually no effect on improving U.S. national security."

Incidentally, the same report demonstrates that approximately 3,000 Americans have been killed by citizens from Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt, and Turkey. The majority of those victims died during the 9/11 attacks.

Those four countries have something pretty glaring in common – they are all locations where President Trump has close business ties.

They're also close US allies, who we can't afford to quarrel with. So only fatal attacks count? There were just recently a couple of attacks by Somalis.

[BruceVC]

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/reality-check-many-of-trump%E2%80%99s-early-vows-will-never-actually-happen/ar-AAmiJF4?li=AA5a8k&ocid=spartanntp

 

looking more and more as if Gromnir were prophetic

 

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/88086-us-election-2016-part-iii/?p=1828131

 

HA! Good Fun!

Gromnir I wanted to ask you some very important questions, with your understanding of the US Constitution and general life experience your opinion is very relevant 

 

The Trump presidency has created something unique in the history of the USA so no one has all the answers or can give there normal predictions. Im very glad he has backtracked on much of the rhetotric so at least thats a small consolation  

 

For the moment I just have one, the way people like Kellyanne Conway and Spicer seem fine to literally use " alternative facts  " or simply be more concerned with spin is unprecedented for me ....I have only been following US politics since 2000 but I have never seen this type of approach to political debate 

 

Does this concern you? How can this be sustainable 

[BruceVC]

 

Time when Teen Vogue is your example of good journalism

 

http://www.teenvogue.com/story/donald-trumps-immigration-ban-excludes-countries-business-ties?mbid=social_twitter

 

Yesterday (January 27), President Donald Trump signed an executive order banning immigration from seven countries, all of which are predominantly Muslim. The countries in question are Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia and Yemen. During the signing, President Trump proclaimed, "I am establishing new vetting measures to keep radical Islamic terrorists out of the United States of America."

However, over the past four decades, there have been no fatal attacks on American soil that were orchestrated from immigrants from any of those seven banned countries. Additionally, according to a report from the Cato Institute, no Americans have been killed in the past 15 years by Muslim Americans with family backgrounds in any of those countries. And it has been noted that zero of the 19 hijackers on 9/11 were from any of those seven countries. The report from the Cato Institute concluded that Trump's ban "will have virtually no effect on improving U.S. national security."

Incidentally, the same report demonstrates that approximately 3,000 Americans have been killed by citizens from Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt, and Turkey. The majority of those victims died during the 9/11 attacks.

Those four countries have something pretty glaring in common – they are all locations where President Trump has close business ties.

They're also close US allies, who we can't afford to quarrel with. So only fatal attacks count? There were just recently a couple of attacks by Somalis.

 

Yes, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt, and Turkey are all strategic allies to the West and the USA . I am not sure why people see this as contradiction ? I am more than happy to explain to anyone interested why these countries matter 

 

All the countries banned have no way to ensure vetting of passengers ...why wouldn't you ban them ? 

[Wrath of Dagon]

Speaking of alternative facts, welcome to post-modernism, Bruce: http://www.hoover.org/research/fake-news-postmodernism-another-name

[Gromnir]

 

 

The Trump presidency has created something unique in the history of the USA so no one has all the answers or can give there normal predictions.

is not genuine unique.  we have had Presidents who, particular early in their terms, who don't fully realize or accept the limitations o' the office.  if an executive is popular enough, they can generate the Congressional and bureaucratic support they need, and may even be able to work 'round the Court a bit. trump is not genuine a new phenomenon, but we ain't seen his like in a long time. 

 

and as for alternative facts, am largely unconcerned.  trump's unpopular populist movement needs a discernable villain. clinton lost the election even if she won the popular vote.  she ain't a viable villain.  illegal aliens is a possible villain, but not enough.  the rate o' illegal border crossings from mexico has been steadily decreasing for years.

 

the uneducated country mouse voters who got trump elected is not the only folks who is afraid o' terrorists.  terrorists has always been a fantastic villain as they can be anyone and anywhere.  unfortunately, the Constitution is gonna make singling out folks based on religion and national origin more difficult than trump realizes.

 

is not a new thing 'mongst executives, but am seeing trump increasing wanna use the media as his villain dujour. what is perhaps new is a populist wannabee executive is fighting 'gainst the media.  has almost always been opposite.  the alternative facts nonsense is, we suspect, a way to paint the media as The Adversary.  

 

dunno.  is gonna be interesting if ugly.  the only way trump becomes anything other than a punchline is if Congress simple rolls over for him and rubber stamps most o' his ill considered, and arguable illegal, actions. numerous powerful republicans has already begun lining up to oppose trump, but if it seems like trump has a mandate from the electorate, things could change.

 

one thing am almost certain of is trump will be disappointed with his Court nominee, whoever it is.  none o' his top three choices is obvious political creatures.  all o' them is Judges first and foremost.  whether they seem to favor 2nd amendment freedoms or a more restrictive view o' probable cause will all be pointless if they sees unconstitutional excess from an executive. loyalty is important to trump, but is often lost on a Justice, and so-called conservative Justices is more likely to take a jaundiced view o' the kinda stuff we has seen thus far from trump.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Ben No.3]

 

I blame Stalinism for this.

We must create a Leftist registry

Put me on

[Elerond]

 

Time when Teen Vogue is your example of good journalism

 

http://www.teenvogue.com/story/donald-trumps-immigration-ban-excludes-countries-business-ties?mbid=social_twitter

 

Yesterday (January 27), President Donald Trump signed an executive order banning immigration from seven countries, all of which are predominantly Muslim. The countries in question are Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia and Yemen. During the signing, President Trump proclaimed, "I am establishing new vetting measures to keep radical Islamic terrorists out of the United States of America."

However, over the past four decades, there have been no fatal attacks on American soil that were orchestrated from immigrants from any of those seven banned countries. Additionally, according to a report from the Cato Institute, no Americans have been killed in the past 15 years by Muslim Americans with family backgrounds in any of those countries. And it has been noted that zero of the 19 hijackers on 9/11 were from any of those seven countries. The report from the Cato Institute concluded that Trump's ban "will have virtually no effect on improving U.S. national security."

Incidentally, the same report demonstrates that approximately 3,000 Americans have been killed by citizens from Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt, and Turkey. The majority of those victims died during the 9/11 attacks.

Those four countries have something pretty glaring in common – they are all locations where President Trump has close business ties.

They're also close US allies, who we can't afford to quarrel with. So only fatal attacks count? There were just recently a couple of attacks by Somalis.

 

 

Egypt with government that is somewhat hostile towards USA is ally, but Iraq with government placed by USA isn't?

 

And I would questioning how good ally Turkey is in these days. 

 

I can't say what counts as fatal attacks don't at least seem to be the reason for the bans.

[Wrath of Dagon]

It's potential of terrorist infiltration. True Pakistan and Afghanistan would be high on the list, but I'm sure it has to do with diplomatic and political considerations. Egypt was only hostile to Obama on account of his support for Muslim Brotherhood. Turkey is formally a NATO ally, although a false one IMO. Iraq's currently at war and doesn't control a lot of its own territory, so there's that. Edit: Reading the executive order, it seems like it has to do with what kind of information on the visa applicants the country is able to provide. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/27/us/politics/refugee-muslim-executive-order-trump.html?_r=1

Edited January 29, 2017 by Wrath of Dagon

[Malcador]

Amazing what fear can do.

[Wrath of Dagon]

It's prudence, not fear. We see what's happening in Europe. A country's first responsibility is always its own citizens.

[algroth]

No, it's fear. The likes of Asghar Farhadi will do nothing against the USA and yet they are banned from entry based on these laws only because they're Iranian. Much as I dislike it, the request for travel visas is prudent because it evaluates the individual and the threat they can present and doesn't merely cast a blanket prohibition that nonsensically bans everyone of a given region or religion, even a figure that is respected worldwide as one of the finest in a perfectly legitimate profession, from entry. That is irrational, and that is the product of fear.

Edited January 29, 2017 by algroth

[Hurlshort]

It is tremendous fearmongering.

[Malcador]

It's prudence, not fear. We see what's happening in Europe. A country's first responsibility is always its own citizens.

Curious as to what you lot see what is happening in Europe and why it would happen in the US given the number the US takes in versus it's population. Also, said prudence is pants, as it ignores more threatening 'sources'.

[Volourn]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4CEA46hg6g

 

 

P.S. trump is being a poo poo head. There is no reason (Outside of silly selfish cowardly ones) why Saudi Arabia isn't on the ban list. But, $ rule. But, hey, it's better he ban travelers than starting a war with Russia. So, still better than Hillary but that is a FAIL in my book on his part.

[Elerond]

Bans seems to be doing good and blocking very dangerous sounding people to entering in the country

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2017/01/28/boston-area-academics-facing-bans-entering/StddgeCOncofRfEFVG7LTL/story.html

 

Boston-area academics are facing bans on entering US

 

Among those whose plans were disrupted was Seyed Soheil Saeedi Saravi, a scientist from Iran, who was planning to come to Boston with his wife to work at a research laboratory specializing in cardiovascular disease at Brigham and Women’s Hospital.

Now his visa has been suspended for three months.

“Many Iranians are successful persons in the field of science and trade in US. We are peaceful people and we are out of political games,” Saravi, 30, wrote in an e-mail. “We learn, research, work for development of our country and help to improve the public health of global populations. . . . I am so sorry for this decision.”

Dr. Thomas Michel, a cardiologist who hired Savari to work in his lab, got the news Friday. He said the travel ban is jeopardizing the country’s position in the scientific community.

“So many people who have been trained in science in this country have gone on to do amazing things in the US and their home countries,” Michel said. “That is being undermined.”

 

Samira Asgari, who holds a doctorate from the École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne in Switzerland, posted a Twitter message Saturday announcing that she had been barred from boarding a flight to the United States because she’s Iranian.

She was traveling to Boston to begin working on a tuberculosis project at a Harvard Medical School research laboratory run by Dr. Soumya Raychaudhuri.

He said he recruited Asgari after hearing her give a talk last May at Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory in New York. She was granted a J-1 Visa and was awarded two years of research funding from the Swiss National Science Foundation.

“I couldn’t believe that somebody with a visa with her standing would be denied entry,” Raychaudhuri said in a telephone interview. “I was very upset.”

He said Asgari had flown from Geneva to Frankfurt where she was barred from continuing to Boston.

[Malcador]

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/trudeau-canada-refugees-banned-u-s/

 

Well, good timing I have to say

[Gromnir]

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/trudeau-canada-refugees-banned-u-s/

 

Well, good timing I have to say

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/protests-erupt-u-s-airports-refugees-detained/

 

also good timing.

 

am not sure who is authoring these executive orders for trump, but they are gonna be problematic.

 

already linked above, but worth another looksee

 

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/reality-check-many-of-trump%E2%80%99s-early-vows-will-never-actually-happen/ar-AAmiJF4?li=AA5a8k&ocid=spartanntp

 

also, 

 

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/%e2%80%98up-is-down%e2%80%99-trump%e2%80%99s-unreality-show-echoes-his-business-past/ar-AAmlWUm?ocid=spartanntp

 

tracking trump lies and alternative facts is becoming almost comical.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Deadly_Nightshade]

 

Federal judge stays deportations of travelers in Trump immigration order

 

Trump executive order: US judge temporarily halts deportations

Edited January 29, 2017 by Deadly_Nightshade

[algroth]

Nazanin Zinouri, Clemson PhD professor, writes on her Facebook:

 

 

“I normally don’t write long posts or any kind of political or religious comments. I apologize in advance and I don’t expect my friends to read this long long past!!

“But today I just couldn’t hold it any longer. Friday 1/20/17 started like any other normal day. I was excited about my trip to Tehran. After all I only get to visit them once a year. I was excited and anxious at the same time. I was worried about my little puppy but I couldn’t wait to see my mom…

“It was an uneventful trip. I made him home on Monday 1/22/17, after around 28 hours, exhausted but so so happy. We were all happy. I was going to eat lots of delicious Persian food and make tons of great memories and go back to my life in the US. But the happiness didn’t last that long.

“On Wednesday, we started hearing rumors about new executive orders that will change immigration rules for some countries including Iran. Soon we started reading drafts like everyone else. I might be banned from going back?!?! No that can’t be true. I’m not gonna let that ruin my trip. But then it got serious so fast.

“Before I knew it, it was actually happening. Even though I didn’t want to leave my family, I quickly booked a ticket to get on the next flight back. Only a few hours after the order was signed, I got to the airport, got on a plane and made it to Dubai.

“After waiting in the line to get my documents checked and after 40 minutes of questions and answers, I boarded the plane to Washington, only to have two TSA officers getting in and ask me to disembark the plane!!!

“Yes after almost 7 years of living the the United States, I got deported!!! No one warned me when I was leaving, no one cared what will happen to my dog or my job or my life there. No one told me what I should do with my car that is still parked at the airport parking. Or what to do with my house and all my belongings.

“They didn’t say it with words but with their actions, that my life doesn’t matter. Everything I worked for all these years doesn’t matter.

I just had to say it…”

[Hurlshort]

Jesus, this stuff is unconscionable. I'm usually pretty tepid on the President stuff, I mean these guys are usually trying to do the right thing even when I disagree with the method. But Trump seems to be going for a full on villain here. There were a lot of complaints about how Obama used Executive orders, but Trump seems to be doubling down on that practice.

[Guard Dog]

 

 

 

one thing am almost certain of is trump will be disappointed with his Court nominee, whoever it is.  none o' his top three choices is obvious political creatures.  all o' them is Judges first and foremost.  whether they seem to favor 2nd amendment freedoms or a more restrictive view o' probable cause will all be pointless if they sees unconstitutional excess from an executive. loyalty is important to trump, but is often lost on a Justice, and so-called conservative Justices is more likely to take a jaundiced view o' the kinda stuff we has seen thus far from trump.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

 

The exact reason Obama chose Kagan & Garland IMO. I think Sotomayor has not turned out to be the utter disaster I was afraid she would be. To the chagrin of some she has become a pretty consistent champion of the 4th Amendment. Although much less so on other aspects of the Constitution I'm afraid to say. Kagan, so far at least, seems predisposed to allow the government broad power. Garland seems to have been cut from the same cloth. I am deeply relieved he was not seated, even if the way it was done was not cool. I see no reason why the Republicans simply didn't just vote him down. Nothing wrong with doing that.

 

I read a bit on Trump's top three. I think Prior would be in for the biggest nomination fight. The other two seem ok. I wish I could make his pick. I'd choose Janice Rogers Brown and dare the Democrats to try to stop her.

 

Also I love how your country mouse is uneducated. I wouldn't cast too many aspersions if I were you. Trump's victory has less to do with his own merits than being the best of nothing but bad choices. I think most of the country mice would agree. 

[Gromnir]

 

 

Also I love how your country mouse is uneducated. I wouldn't cast too many aspersions if I were you. Trump's victory has less to do with his own merits than being the best of nothing but bad choices. I think most of the country mice would agree. 

 

like it or not

 

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/09/behind-trumps-victory-divisions-by-race-gender-education/

 

but yeah, even trump voters didn't necessarily like him so much as they hated hillary clinton.

 

as to the Court, possible the only positive we see from trump's election is we are more likely to see replacement Justices who favor judicial restraint.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited January 29, 2017 by Gromnir