Since green card holders aren't being blocked from entering now then I guess that shows Bannon isn't the one running the country then. That is a relief.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
Printable View
Since green card holders aren't being blocked from entering now then I guess that shows Bannon isn't the one running the country then. That is a relief.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
Since that was only announced after pushback from pretty much everywhere I guess you need to try again.
Since it's the waiver holders who aren't being blocked the green card holders still count as being blocked. There wouldn't be a waiver program in place unless someone plans to use both sides of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
I think the common assumption about conditions inside the White House is that it's Ryan, Priebus and Pence vs Miller and Bannon.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
https://cratesandribbons.files.wordp...130103mail.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
http://www.christopherfowler.co.uk/b...2005-02-07.jpg
http://img.huffingtonpost.com/asset/...che=tf1ps3f8bl
http://i.huffpost.com/gen/2997910/th...Y-MAIL-570.jpg
http://images.complex.com/complex/im...ww3qnx9tzj.jpg
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/...87_638x421.jpg
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CwXwe6AXUAQsiCp.jpg
- VS -
http://dailyscene.com/wp-content/upl...ardian.750.jpg
http://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bt00Z43IEAAMjj4.jpg:medium
https://hayleyjohnson1994.files.word...gejuly2009.jpg
https://cynicaljournalist.files.word...an-2-12-10.png
https://commentisfreewatch.files.wor...-front-001.jpg
I don't believe there are any that you'd recognize as "conservative".Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Whereas Steely considers The Economist and The Times to be conservative, neither are conservative in the sense the word seems to be typically employed in the US. In RB's manic delusions The Economist is practically a communist propaganda pamphlet.
Some people consider WSJ, FT, Lawfare Blog and HBR to be conservative. I generally think of their editorial stance as detached centrism.
For news I trust Reuters to give a concise and accurate--if sparse--account of current events, but I typically go to more local sources, and sources with greater resources for conducting research, for details on those events. I find it difficult to fault BBC on the quality of their reporting.
I prefer subject-specific sources such as Foreign Policy over general-purpose one-stop-shop sources, and these are more likely to feature high quality conservative takes on various issues. For some subjects there isn't much partisanship to be found among serious experts. For informative conservative takes on business and economic policy, EU policy, etc, I supplement mainstream sources such as FT, Economist, WSJ, Businessweek and HBR with a mixture of academic blogs, popular blogs with a reputation for thoroughness in both posts as well as comments, various contrarian blogs, forums and--of course--my friends.
Sometimes I turn to National Review, but their quality of writing is extremely variable and they do conservative thinkers a disservice with their compulsion to peddle opinions, emotions (typically outrage or glee) and troll-bait for clix. Those people are better enjoyed in a more literary and polished form through eg. The Atlantic or The National Journal, or their own blogs.
Frankly, the only conservatively slanted sources I "respect" that you'd know of are Fuzzy--who it may be inaccurate to describe as conservative in the sense I believe you use the word--and Enoch, who I suspect wears a cowboy hat and leather chaps on weekdays.
Steely cherrypicking headlines proves nothing.
Aimless putting extreme words in my mouth may make you feel good about your strawman but doesn't make it so. I'd call The Times and The Economist centre-right but with tendencies to swing centre-left at times, like backing Blair's Labour. The one area The Economist is extreme on is in being Europhile.
Read the top three stories in each right now.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Being socially liberal is not center-left. Neither is favoring competence over incompetence.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
I'll bite.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Daily Mail
1. 'Devastated' Kylie Minogue 'ends her engagement to British actor Joshua Sasse over suspicions about his relationship with Spanish actress' - just days after gushing on TV about their wedding plans
2. Have they REALLY got nothing better to do? Eurocrats demand EU stars are placed on footballers and Olympians' shirts alongside national emblems
3. Is this the end of underwear? Why stars are forgoing bras and pants on the red carpet (and why they believe it makes them look more CLASSY)
The Guardian
1. Campaigners launch fresh Brexit legal challenge over single market
2. North Korea faces 'overwhelming' US response if it uses nuclear arms – Mattis
3. European parliament leaders call on EU to reject Trump's likely ambassador pick
Indeed. Kylie Minogue's engagement ending, what sports people wear on their clothing, and lack of celebrity underwear are much more important things to be concerned with today than Brexit, North Korea and Trump.
http://www.pistonheads.com/inc/images/yes.gif
I must say, I was more tempted by the underwear scoop than by yet another 'Brexit challenge'
http://www.vox.com/world/2017/2/2/14...green-massacre
Nice recap to the "obama banned people too" bullshit, with a side of a make believe terrorist attack. Guess she doesn't have to complain about people making fun of her "alternative facts" quote anymore.
Feel free to find headlines/stories of equivalent shittiness from the Guardian.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
While you're at it, why don't you find something equivalent to the Mail's gleeful participation in the character assassination of Chris Jefferies after the murder of Joanna Yates? Or the infamous 1993 "Abortion hope after 'gay genes' finding" (note to foreigners: yes, really) headline? Or the Ralph Miliband hit piece?
EDIT:
or the blatantly false story about an immigrant (oh noes!) being allowed to stay in the country because he owned a cat: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...immigrant.html https://fullfact.org/news/catgate-ma...son-judgement/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local...=.f2e53136cbdc
Over 100,000 visas have been revoked as a result of President Trump’s ban on travel from seven predominantly Muslim countries, an attorney for the government revealed in Alexandria federal court Friday.
...
“It’s quite clear that not all the thought went into it that should have gone into it,” Brinkema said. “There has been chaos . . . without any kind of actual hard evidence that there is a need” to revoke visas already granted. People had relied on their visas as valid, she said; families had expected to be reunited with loved ones.
:sour:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...014-visit-iran
Former Norway PM held at Washington airport over 2014 visit to Iran
To quote from elsewhere:
Former prime minister of US's safest fucking allied country, and a conservative minister of maybe the most including and moderate of any traditional christian church, invited guest to the annual National Prayer Breakfast, travelling on DIPLOMATIC PASSPORT.
Even before he left the Norwegian government this guy was well known for his peace talk initiatives, and the Oslo Centre he is the current president of is one of the lead partners for "One World in Dialogue" which aims to make a UN charter on how to preserve places considered holy across religions and cultures.
He spends his life traveling speaking of peace, acceptance and human rights to all corners of the world. He should get a medal for being able to open dialogue where it is most needed.
So yeah, basically this guy is the type of person that Trump/Bannon would be most afraid of.
The worst part is that the officers are blaming Obama for the mess Trump is creating.
That was deliberate. As the story says, he had diplomatic papers. A) diplomatic papers were clearly labeled as one of the exempt groups in the EO, B) customs agents are, in fact, trained about how to deal with those who have such papers. This IS Dulles airport, they do get such transients from time to time each day. I couldn't tell you if someone wanted to vent some spleen at Norway for some reason or someone decided it was a great "anti-profiling" idea but if he was detained and questioned it was because someone higher up deliberately wanted that to happen.
Well the officers said this is due to Obama's rules. Trump's rules AFAIK excluded diplomats so that'd make sense. Though I suppose executive pressure could mean that Obama's rules are being interpreted differently now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
You know what? I wouldn't be surprised if there is an attack attempted by a refugee now after this circus. I wonder if it'll be allowed to occur by Trumpists in the various intelligence agencies.
Wait a minute. Does the establishment clause apply to executive orders?
Why wouldn't it?
lol I like how you set it up. "No refugee attack? See they were fine!" Refugee attack occurs, "Probably a Trumpist allowed it to happen to prove a point." Get real.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Did you miss the part where not one American has been killed in a terrorist attack by immigrants/refugees from the 7 countries on the ban list?
Of course that misses the fact that there have been:
1: Potential terrorists from those nations arrested in the USA prior to attacks.
2: Hundreds of murders in Europe by terrorist attacks from immigrants/refugees from those countries in recent years.
Source for #2? IIRC most perpetrators were from different countries, like Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia (plus most were European citizens so when they canceled the ban for those with double passports this order wouldn't affect them).
You claim hundreds of murders so I guess we can just look at the bigger ones:
Berlin truck attack: Tunisian.
Nice truck attack: Tunisian.
Brussels bombing: all but one of Moroccan decent, one of Syrian descent (but born in Norway).
Charlie Hebdo: Algerian and Mali descent.
Brussels Jewish museum: Algerian descent.
Paris attacks: a bit harder to find out, likely two Iraqis. But again most are not from one of the 7 countries.
Afaict the text itself refers only to congress's legislative powers, not the president's authority. I'd just assumed that it had been established later, in US constitutional law theory and practice, that this restriction applied to other branches and other levels of government but I have been unable to find a specific ruling that clearly shows that it applies to EOs. I figure there must be one but who knows, I've been disappointed so many times of late :oQuote:
Originally Posted by Loki
There are two implicit claims in my post. The first is based on my assumptions about things that may enable or provoke radicalization. This order made many people very angry and those who saw all their money wasted by it are likely to be angrier than most. It may also take away from desperate and abused people their last hope of reuniting with their loved ones and making for themselves a decent life with a good future. Angry people with no hope would seem to be more likely to be radicalized by terrorist recruiters or just get ideas all on their own.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
The second part is of course conspiratorial but lately US politics has seemed more like a bad political thriller than like real world politics in a modern western democracy so I'm not taking anything for granted anymore, esp. in light of rumours about the deep divisions in some intelligence agencies.
Hence #muslimbanQuote:
Originally Posted by Flixy
From memory the Bataclan attack was planned in Syria and all the attackers that day had been to Syria and a couple of the attackers were Iraqis. Though many were indeed Europe-born Muslims who'd gone to Syria and returned and attacked Paris that night.
Though indeed you seem to be right that by only including seven nations he does seem to have excluded most of the Muslim terrorist attackers from the '"it's not really a Muslim ban" Muslim ban'. Had it been an actual Muslim ban then they would have been excluded but it's not so they're not.
*shrug* It's the version of a Muslim ban they thought they'd be able to get away with. Combined with the exception for religious minorities it amounts to a ban on Muslim refugees from those countries. That's just another flavor of Muslim ban. There aren't all that many Muslim refugees to the US from most other Muslim countries. Statements made by Trump & co. leading up to the EO strongly suggest that their intent was to implement some form of Muslim ban, and that will also be taken into account.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
I don't think anyone disputes that.
White House actions in first weeks look and feel very much like someone testing boundaries - seeing what they can get away with.
Almost all were not even immigrants but born in western Europe. Not to mention that in the case of the Paris attack most were already wanted and would never have gotten a visa anyway. So for all of these attacks this ban would have made no difference whatsoever, especially since immigrants from those countries are subjected to background checks that none of these terrorists would have passed.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
I'm not denying that there's a risk of terror attacks, but a) this ban won't do anything to stop them and b) almost all terrorists were born in a western country and radicalised later, and stuff like this ban actually increases the chance of radicalisation.
Oh and while most of the Paris attackers had been in Syria IIRC it was planned in Brussels. I would say the best way to prevent terrorists to enter the US would be to ban immigration from Europe.
There have not been hundreds of murders committed by immigrants or refugees from these 7 countries which is what you claimed. I don't mind that you support a ban like this (though I do disagree) but I do mind that you keep using lies.
I don't support the ban :confused:
I made a mistake since Algeria and Tunisia aren't on the list if they were on the list then the hundreds of deaths would have been true. There have been hundreds of deaths in Europe in recent years from Muslim terrorists but from different nations to the list - are you happy with that?
The amendments originally applied to the federal government (Congress and the executive branch). The courts have interpreted the 14th amendment to apply it to states as well (incorporation).Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
While it has the same end effect, your phrasing suggests deliberate probing. I would instead suggest it was the typical brash confidence of populism facing its first rebuke by reality. Just because you think you have a "mandate" doesn't mean things are actually as simple and easy as they were portrayed while on campaign.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
Useful to differentiate Trump, who seems to have no idea what he's doing, from people like Bannon and Miller, who have a very clear objective.
I simply cannot fathom how people*who are usually demonizing anything even*faintly smelling of leftist policies are cheering for a guy who said that he's a Leninist and wants to destroy the US.
(Yes, I know,*"left" and "Lenin" is not the same, blah blah...)
Agreed these guys are antithetical to everything the right should stand for. Hopefully he faces a primary challenge next time.
Speaking of Trump having no idea what he's doing: https://twitter.com/PaulGowder/statu...15896683155456
I'm certain he read it, he just didn't understand the context and consequences of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki