White House actions in first weeks look and feel very much like someone testing boundaries - seeing what they can get away with.
White House actions in first weeks look and feel very much like someone testing boundaries - seeing what they can get away with.
The light that once I thought compassion still casting shadows in your action
The words you shared were cold transactions that bring me to curse what you've done
When you're up there absorbed in greatness with such success you've grown complacent
I hope you scorch your many faces when you fly too close to the sun
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.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.
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
I don't support the ban
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).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
Hope is the denial of reality
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.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
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.
Hope is the denial of reality
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...)
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
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
Hope is the denial of reality
I'm certain he read it, he just didn't understand the context and consequences of it.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Don't many modern bills run into many hundreds of pages? I believe Obamacare from memory may have been over a thousand pages long. Do you honestly believe all Presidents, Senators and Representatives read and understand everything they read from cover to cover?
I think we should be able to expect the leader of the free world to have the capacity to read and comprehend a two page executive order before signing it.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
The comment in the link is about not being briefed properly rather than not reading it. I do believe all those presidents, senators and representatives have staff who read and brief their bosses on the content.
Edit: and I think executive orders tend to be a lot more brief.
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
Not disputing that. I personally don't think anyone should ever sign anything they haven't read and understood [except EULA's, I'm not reading those]. I'm just making a related point that it is concerning that laws now are evolving to become so enormous, laws should run to a few pages of clear English not a few thousand pages of legalese. I wonder just how often the President signs something [like a new law not just an executive order] that he doesn't fully understand?
This is a great example for the type of people Trump is playing to, CocaCola aired a commercial of people singing America The Beautiful right before the superbowl. So of course people are calling for a boycott cause the song wasn't entirely in english and/or wasn't sung by all white men.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
This is terrible, if they boycott coke their life expectancy is likely to go up substantially.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
This is good.
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-w..._campaign=newsFormer Top Security Officials Criticize Trump's 'Ill-Conceived' Ban In Court Filing
February 6, 20178:38 AM ET
BILL CHAPPELL
President Trump's ban on some Muslim travelers and immigrants "was ill-conceived, poorly implemented and ill-explained" — and harms, rather than advances, U.S. interests, say 10 former officials who led parts of America's diplomatic and security apparatus over the past 20 years.
"In our professional opinion, this Order cannot be justified on national security or foreign policy grounds," the group wrote to the court weighing the legality of Trump's executive order that targets seven majority-Muslim nations.
The group, which includes former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and former CIA Director Michael Hayden, is siding with two states (Washington and Minnesota) that on Friday won a temporary restraining order that suspended Trump's ban. Over the weekend, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit refused his administration's request to restore the ban.
The document that Albright and the other experts signed is entered as Exhibit A in the states' case against Trump's ban, which the states say "unleashed chaos" when it was enacted by executive order in late January.
While Albright and the other experts cite their work in government that extends back decades, four of the former officials on the list were receiving intelligence briefings up until Trump's inauguration — including former Secretary of State John Kerry and former National Security Advisor Susan Rice. The group includes veterans of the Bush and Obama administrations.
After his ban was put on hold, Trump tweeted, "What is our country coming to when a judge can halt a Homeland Security travel ban and anyone, even with bad intentions, can come into U.S.?"
He later implied that if an attack occurs, federal Judge James Robart should be blamed: "Just cannot believe a judge would put our country in such peril. If something happens blame him and court system. People pouring in. Bad!"
Both sides of the case are facing Monday deadlines to submit their briefs for the next round in the legal fight, with a ruling possible early this week. The states say that withdrawing the temporary order blocking the ban would "unleash chaos again."
Albright, Hayden and their colleagues told the court, "Very few attacks on U.S. soil since September 11, 2001 have been traced to foreign nationals at all. The overwhelming majority of attacks have been committed by U.S. citizens." And in another reference to Sept. 11, the group states that even that terrorist attack didn't provoke the U.S. government "to broadly bar entrants based on nationality, national origin, or religious affiliation."
The states attacking the ban say the president's order disrupted the personal lives of thousands of people and undermined businesses and universities that rely on ties to the seven banned countries. After Washington filed its suit one week ago, Minnesota joined its case.
Saying the president's order runs counter to America's values, the former security and diplomatic officials state, "Rebranding a proposal first advertised as a 'Muslim Ban' as 'Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States' does not disguise the Order's discriminatory intent, or make it necessary, effective, or faithful to America's Constitution, laws, or values."
Criticizing the ban, the former officials say Trump's administration hasn't aired any facts or allegations regarding threats posed by any specific person or phase of the current visa vetting process.
Here's the full list of former officials who signed the document:
Former Secretaries of State Madeleine Albright and John Kerry;
Former CIA directors Michael Hayden and Leon Panetta (who was also a Defense secretary);
Former CIA deputies and acting directors John McLaughlin and Michael Morell;
Former Deputy CIA director Avril Haines;
Former National Security Advisor Susan Rice;
Former Deputy National Security Advisor Lisa Monaco;
Former DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano;
The Rules
Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)
Note that Condoleeza Rice is missing from that list. Still unwilling to criticize Trump.
Hope is the denial of reality
Maybe she agrees or sympathises with the decision? Or agrees he has the right to make the decision? Although we disagree with it surveys say a plurality of Americans agree with Trump on this so why can't Condoleeza Rice be one of them?
Maybe she's got a muslim grandmother somewhere down the line?
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
She's publicly backed Tillerson and Sessions. No criticism of Trump since the election.
Hope is the denial of reality
So she's backed his choices and not criticised him?
That's evidence that she doesn't agree with him how? She probably even voted for him you know.
Eh? That's the opposite of my point. I also didn't realize that Rumsfeld and Cheney are in Trump's corner now (in case you missed it, a vast majority of Bush people are either neutral or actively opposing Trump). It explains the hostility towards Iran.
Edit: apparently Rice does oppose this executive order: http://www.politico.com/states/calif...-policy-109285
Hope is the denial of reality
My point is that Rice is capable of speaking for herself. If she isn't doing so then its because she doesn't want to.
If only she spoke for herself during Bush's administration.
Hope is the denial of reality
Why would she while she was signed up to collective responsibility as part of the administration, which she isn't now?
I guarantee most legislators don't understand their bills cover to cover. This wasn't a legislative bill though this was an executive order. They're generally shorter (as the one being discussed was, only a couple of pages) and easier to grasp.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
It's pretty much a straight Dem administration list anyway. Hayden's the only exception I see and he was career military, professionally apolitical
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
As I said its not a defence of the President signing an executive order he doesn't understand (an order that unilaterally comes from him, unlike legislation that comes from hundreds of elected representatives). Merely an observation of how modern politics relies so much on "briefings".
What you said was a red herring Rand. It had nothing to do with what we were discussing, nor did it inform the topic, add context, etc. It doesn't matter how much "briefings" are a part of modern politics. We all know and expect the man requires briefings before he signs something, he HAS to, he has no experience.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
