It doesn't matter how much "briefings" are a part of modern politics? It wasn't on topic? The words highlighted were "Mr Trump's anger that he was not fully briefed on details of the executive order he signed giving his chief strategist a seat on the National Security Council" [emphasis added] so excuse me for naively thinking discussing briefings would be on topic.
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
My apologiesI don't support the banHappy in the sense that now it's not complete bullshit. In the sense of this law you'd still be entirely incorrect. But a) all those people from Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia already had Western European citizenship as well and that part was already excluded from the ban before the judge called a halt b) they were almsot all known to at least some extent to the authorities and would never have received a visum anyway c) they were almost all born in the country where they committed the attack and were not refugees or immigrants and therefore not part of any visa ban. So the ban would not have affected any attack.
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?
Actually, reading back your original post I objected to, even if those countries were on the list your statement would be wrong. Because those attack were not committed by refugees/immigrants from those countries but were almost all second generation.
Plus if this was actually about national security, aside from the fact most of those recent attackers had roots in Tunisia, Morocco and Algeria and 9/11 attackers came mostly from Saudi Arabia and other countries not banned, the 7/7 bombers had Pakistani and Jamaican roots; why the hell is Iran on, I must have missed Iranians committing terrorism recently.
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
Iran is on many long-standing lists as an "enemy" of America and is a long-standing state sponsor of terrorism.
This is irrelevant when it comes to Iranian immigrants and visitors to the US...in fact, over 80% of the people affected by the ban were Iranian.
Hope is the denial of reality
We all agree that the list that Obama and the Department of Homeland Security drew up was not intended to be used as a blanket ban list, that was an abuse by Trump, but what I said is relevant to why Iranians are subject to extra vetting which is what the list was for and were included in the list when Obama signed the bill as law (other nations were added later) which is why Trump's ban covers them.
Is this "But Obama!" thing still going on?
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?
The question from Flixy was why Iran was on the list. Obama put them there (or signed the bill that did). Trump then abused the list.
You might have missed this memo, but Trump is under no obligation to follow Obama's precedents.
Hope is the denial of reality
Yes but having a conveniently ready list of nations that are legally defined as "countries of concern" in a law passed already by Congress and the prior administration made this legally a smaller step and potentially easier to defend in the courts than if he had selected a list of Islamic nations on his own as was originally proposed.
Similarly the religious restriction was made to prioritise "refugees of a minority religion" rather than Christians as initially proposed likely to attempt to do an end-run around the First Amendment, despite the fact that ironically that would have prioritised Muslim refugees during the conflicts in Yugoslavia.
Considering the fact that*Trump himself claimed that he wasn't*fully informed about what he signed, I severely doubt that "legal steps" and "easier to defend" entered into his thinking at any point.
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?
That was a different executive order. But I think it entered the thinking his advisors who drafted this order.
No, Rand, it was the Muslim Ban order he complained about.
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?
On this one, Rand is right. The article being referenced indicated the EO he was upset about not being properly briefed about was the one giving Bannon a permanent seat on the NSC.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
I wonder if Bannon was the one supposed to brief him on that
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
Wikipedia bans Daily Mail as 'unreliable' source
"Online encyclopaedia editors rule out publisher as a reference citing ‘reputation for poor fact checking and sensationalism’"
When the sky above us fell
We descended into hell
Into kingdom come
Yet still allows Russia Today, Fox News and Buzzfeed
Buzzfeed is click bait shit, no idea on their accuracy though. Fox News isn't perfect but it is honest about its biases (for the most part, their major stars don't pretend to be objective news anchors) and most of the facts reported are accurate.Yet still allows Russia Today, Fox News and Buzzfeed
Why are so many people saying that 80% of the 9th circuit's rulings are reversed? Afaict only a small fraction of a percent of their rulings are ever even reviewed and the reversal rate for those is lower than the median for other appellate courts.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
because they are only counting the cases that the higher court decides to hear.
In other words, people are idiots. The best part is that the study which provided the 80% figured opens up with a very straight forward statement saying that the claim that the 9th is a "rogue circuit" is false.
The study is also a bit outdated, the data they used is from 99-08.
"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."
Any of you who try and tell me there aren't issues with the 9th Circuit are A)people who are fairly uninformed on legal matters particularly those who matter at the appellate levels, B)people who don't live under the 9th Circuits' excessively large jurisdiction and hence only here about cases that received national attention (which even most cases which do get reviewed at a higher level don't get), and C) are wholly ignorant of that Circuit's historical tradition.
And by the by, you need to look at not just the 9th Circuit's rulings which get overruled by SCOTUS but the first-line appellate rulings which get overruled by an en banc ruling of a larger panel of 9th judges.
Lewk doesn't know anything either but any of you that actually pay attention might recall that I have been making such criticisms of the 9th since my own college days at AtariCC.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Okay, what are the numbers really?
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
There have been other less formal investigations as well that indicate that this court has, for whatever reasons, an unusually high rate of reversals, esp. summary and unanimous reversals:
http://scholarship.law.nd.edu/cgi/vi...8&context=ndlr
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-us...-idUSKBN15O2XS
I thought the 9th Circuit was going to get its decision reversed?
Edit: now Trump's people are hedging. Apparently they've lost so much that they learned to enjoy it.
Last edited by Loki; 02-10-2017 at 10:32 PM.
Hope is the denial of reality
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
