DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
One certainly has an advantage living in a megalopolis.
I see six new things every day before breakfast. It's wonderfully diverse.
I lived in London ON (pop. 350K) for two years. Man, what a dull, white place.
The Muslim Ban Has Begun!
- Thread starter ElectricFetus
- Start date
I see six new things every day before breakfast. It's wonderfully diverse.
I lived in London ON (pop. 350K) for two years. Man, what a dull, white place.
Then explain why Jeff Sessions wanted Yates to confirm that she would disagree with any unlawful orders (my highlights):
Video of Yates' 2015 confirmation hearing as deputy attorney general shows Sen. Jeff Sessions grilling her about her responsibility to then-President Barack Obama should he require her to execute "unlawful" views. Sessions is now Donald Trump's pick to lead the Justice Department.
"You have to watch out because people will be asking you to do things and you need to say no. You think the attorney general has the responsibility to say no to the President if he asks for something that's improper?" Sessions asks Yates.
"A lot of people have defended the Lynch nomination, for example by saying, 'Well, he appoints somebody who's going to execute his views, what's wrong with that?' " the GOP senator from Alabama asks, referring to Obama's 2014 nomination of Loretta Lynch as attorney general.
"But if the views the President wants to execute are unlawful, should the attorney general or the deputy attorney general say no?"
Yates replies: "Senator, I believe the attorney general or the deputy attorney general has an obligation to follow the law and the Constitution and to give their independent legal advice to the President."
An Obama appointee, Yates had been running the Justice Department while Sessions underwent confirmation as attorney general in the Senate.
She was fired Monday night after instructing Justice Department lawyers not to make legal arguments defending Trump's executive order on immigration and refugees.
"My responsibility is to ensure that the position of the Department of Justice is not only legally defensible, but is informed by our best view of what the law is after consideration of all the facts," Yates said in a letter to department lawyers.
Heh, I would hardly call the sub-rural Pennsylvania a megalopolis
Edit - on rethinking that I thought no you are saying you live in a megalopolis now?
Lets get back to my graduate student, here
1) She is trap in the USA, if she leaves the boarders of the USA she can't come back in no matter her visa being valid.
2) Will her visa be renewed, who knows
Now consider how many like her, highly educated, productive, relatively secular Iranians, who can't come back to there job and schooling in the USA, where they are productive and bringing money in, and instead must go back to their theocratic state, put the hijab back on, maybe if they are really lucky get a job making nuclear bombs or chemical weapons or what not.
Can any trumpette explain why this is a good thing?
1) She is trap in the USA, if she leaves the boarders of the USA she can't come back in no matter her visa being valid.
2) Will her visa be renewed, who knows
Now consider how many like her, highly educated, productive, relatively secular Iranians, who can't come back to there job and schooling in the USA, where they are productive and bringing money in, and instead must go back to their theocratic state, put the hijab back on, maybe if they are really lucky get a job making nuclear bombs or chemical weapons or what not.
Can any trumpette explain why this is a good thing?
Racial, religious discrimination is almost impossible for the holder to explain. This I think is due to the intense paranoia/inferiority involved. It is embarrassing for them but this embarrassment fails to counter their irrational fear.
Last edited:
Sacrifices have to be made for the greater good. It's too bad, sure - but why does she want to go back and forth from Iran anyway?
Remember that you are talking about people who have never actually traveled. Overlay the map of Trump electoral votes (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/elections/live_results/2016_general/president/map.html) on this: http://chartsbin.com/view/1147 and consider that many US passports are used for crossing an ocean once, or never.
Clinton took every State in which more than half the adult residents hold passports, except Florida and Alaska.
Last edited:
Family.
Terrorist family. Iranian family. She doesn't have to visit them. Sacrifices must be made. Freedom isn't free.
#Republicans | #WhatTheyVotedFor
This isn't surprising, really. Via the Intercept↱:
Following a request from Congress, the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Homeland Security has directed personnel to preserve all documents related to the implementation of President Donald Trump's executive order barring travelers from seven Muslim-majority countries last weekend as part of an internal investigation into the order's chaotic rollout, according to an internal document obtained by The Intercept.
In an agency-wide directive sent to DHS staff early Wednesday afternoon, the IG's office wrote, “All agency personnel must preserve any document that contains information that is potentially relevant to OIG's investigation, or that might reasonably lead to the discovery of relevant information relating to the implementation of this Executive Order. For the duration of this hold, any relevant information that is within your possession or control must be preserved in the exact form as it currently exists.”
The department's IG office did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the investigation.
The launch of the probe, headed by DHS Inspector General John Roth, follows calls from Illinois Sens. Tammy Duckworth and Dick Durbin earlier this week for a “comprehensive investigation” into the “chaotic execution” of the administration's order, which separated families around the world and led to mass protests at multiple U.S. airports.
In an agency-wide directive sent to DHS staff early Wednesday afternoon, the IG's office wrote, “All agency personnel must preserve any document that contains information that is potentially relevant to OIG's investigation, or that might reasonably lead to the discovery of relevant information relating to the implementation of this Executive Order. For the duration of this hold, any relevant information that is within your possession or control must be preserved in the exact form as it currently exists.”
The department's IG office did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the investigation.
The launch of the probe, headed by DHS Inspector General John Roth, follows calls from Illinois Sens. Tammy Duckworth and Dick Durbin earlier this week for a “comprehensive investigation” into the “chaotic execution” of the administration's order, which separated families around the world and led to mass protests at multiple U.S. airports.
The good news is that rule of law appears to still be in effect.
The bad news is that not all corrupt law enforcement officers are so stupid as to leave obvious records; to wit, the report also notes:
Rank and file employees at DHS, who for days have described an atmosphere of chaos and frustration at the agency, learned of the probe with some surprise, according to an official who spoke to The Intercept on condition of anonymity. “I think the OIG probe will demonstrate that there was a real sense of confusion over the weekend at DHS,” the official said. “I don't think it will demonstrate any attempt to circumvent the circuit court rulings. There were, of course, numerous instances of individuals, including legal permanent residents being removed after the stay. But any orders to do this would have been given verbally either in person or over telephone. It is highly unlikely that any record of this would exist in written form.”
Even still, President Trump has
An email from the Trump transition team on the evening of Jan. 13 instructed all transition team leaders to “reach out tonight and inform” the inspectors general in their agencies “that they are being held over on a temporary basis.”
The email from Katie Giblin, a member of the presidential transition team, confirms a story The Post reported last week that inspectors general, who by bipartisan tradition have open-ended appointments regardless of party, had been told that they would be held over only on a temporary basis and that they should seek other employment.
The email shows that the effort to replace the inspectors was not limited to a handful of agencies, but that it was intended to take aim at inspectors general across government departments.
Moreover, the email from Giblin suggests involvement at a more senior level of the transition. The email urges transition team leaders to report back to her or a person whose name is blacked out in the document presented at the hearing today. But a person familiar with the email said that the other person is Justin Clark, a Republican lawyer from West Hartford, Conn., who was deputy national political director of Donald Trump's presidential campaign and who has been named deputy assistant to the president and the White House director of intergovernmental affairs.
The email from Katie Giblin, a member of the presidential transition team, confirms a story The Post reported last week that inspectors general, who by bipartisan tradition have open-ended appointments regardless of party, had been told that they would be held over only on a temporary basis and that they should seek other employment.
The email shows that the effort to replace the inspectors was not limited to a handful of agencies, but that it was intended to take aim at inspectors general across government departments.
Moreover, the email from Giblin suggests involvement at a more senior level of the transition. The email urges transition team leaders to report back to her or a person whose name is blacked out in the document presented at the hearing today. But a person familiar with the email said that the other person is Justin Clark, a Republican lawyer from West Hartford, Conn., who was deputy national political director of Donald Trump's presidential campaign and who has been named deputy assistant to the president and the White House director of intergovernmental affairs.
Then again, there is always House Oversight Chairman Jason Chaffetz who overlooks that last point and noted he has spoken with the White House, and "they wish it hadn't happened". The Utah Republican further explained, "With each new administration, I'm sure there's a learning curve, and hopefully they've learned that lesson".
Uh-huh. We're going to be saying that a lot, aren't we? And about the very sort of stuff conservatives always imagined of the Democratic demons of their dystopian dreams. If conservative voters don't find this sort of stuff concerning, perhaps society ought never again believe a word those people say.
It's like the Speaker's complaint about the bad rollout. What, is there a prettier way to project tyranny? It's one thing to invoke the occasional professional wrestling metaphor about raising villains as heroes, but we really ought not have any doubt about Republicans. This isn't a game. Watch who lines up with President Trump; watch who stands apart. Oh, right, and watch who squirms as they try to tiptoe the precipice and just look natural as they sweat and scream and piss themselves trying to convince the rest of us there's nothing to see here.
____________________
Notes:
Devereaux, Ryan, Murtaza Hussain, and Alice Speri. "Homeland Security Inspector General Opens Investigation of Muslim Ban, Orders Document Preservation". The Intercept. 1 February 2017. TheIntercept.com. 2 February 2017. http://bit.ly/2jIO1EV
Mufson, Steven. "Trump transition email shows initial effort to oust all inspectors general". The Washington Post. 1 February 2017. WashingtonPost.com. 2 February 2017. http://wapo.st/2kXz72u
Preference over non-Muslim? No. Even the left has established that the smaller the minority, the greater the preference. Preference over a majority Shia? Sure.
See my above answer.
As with all things, it helps to change the players around to illuminate the reality. During the Crusades, would you favor helping a Muslim, from a Crusades-torn region, over a minority sect of Christianity? Would that make you Christophobic?
But if your appeals to emotion make you feel righteous, you go right ahead.
I know.
Accidental? What was accidental? Guy's mom dying because of it?
Syne,
The current threat level as indicated by homeland security is:
"Elevated threat level"
meaning:
"An Elevated Condition is declared when there is a significant risk of terrorist attacks. In addition to the Protective Measures taken in the previous Threat Conditions, Federal departments and agencies should consider the following general measures in addition to the Protective Measures that they will develop and implement:
src: http://usasecure.org/threat.php
There appears to be no immediate or known terrorist threat against the USA. and if there is it is entirely predictable...
so why the Muslim ban?
No need for it...
The current threat level as indicated by homeland security is:
"Elevated threat level"
meaning:
"An Elevated Condition is declared when there is a significant risk of terrorist attacks. In addition to the Protective Measures taken in the previous Threat Conditions, Federal departments and agencies should consider the following general measures in addition to the Protective Measures that they will develop and implement:
- Increasing surveillance of critical locations;
- Coordinating emergency plans as appropriate with nearby jurisdictions;
- Assessing whether the precise characteristics of the threat require the further refinement of preplanned Protective Measures; and
- Implementing, as appropriate, contingency and emergency response plans."
src: http://usasecure.org/threat.php
There appears to be no immediate or known terrorist threat against the USA. and if there is it is entirely predictable...
so why the Muslim ban?
No need for it...
Nobody has established that the smaller minorities get the greater preferences. I look forward to Trump's edict leading to a USA preference for Sunnis from heavily Shiite regions, and Shiites from heavily Sunni regions. Either that, or the revelation that it's actually a de facto ban on Muslims.
So you would accept preference granted to war zone refugees belonging to the single sect of Muslims that has produced the overwhelming majority of terrorist attacks against the West, instead of immigrants from populations that have produced few or no terrorists against the West at all.
See my above answer.
As with all things, it helps to change the players around to illuminate the reality. During the Crusades, would you favor helping a Muslim, from a Crusades-torn region, over a minority sect of Christianity? Would that make you Christophobic?
Excellent, glad to see you admit that you have no real argument and that you are simply pandering to your religious preferences, you bigoted monster.
During the Crusades? Simple - I wouldn't wish something like the Crusades on anyone, so no, I wouldn't favor a Muslim over a Christian... I wouldn't favor one over the other, period. And that is, by the way, a very smelly red herring, as it ignores a simple fact:
There shall be NO RELIGIOUS TEST for the United States. Period, full stop, end of story. That is how separation of Church and State is supposed to work. We are meant to be free to worship as we wish, with the obvious provision that we not harm others in doing so (ergo, things such as Virgin Sacrifice to the Volcano Gods... yeah, that tends to be out).
Now, every single Muslim I know wants nothing more than to be allowed to go about their day, earn their way, and make their own fate. I don't know a single one who thinks what ISIS/ISIL is doing is good, or even allowable in accordance with their scripture; they consider them just as fucked in the head as we do the WBC fools.
So, now, explain to us; how is this ban not an utter political ploy / attack on religious freedom, hm?
Once again, I would like to point out that there has been far more fatal terror attacks from citizens of the exempted countries than from those that are banned... in fact, there have been more home-grown terrorists here in the US that killed many more people than from the banned countries... so, how, exactly, does banning the people who have already been granted refuge actually help keep us safe?
Sounds like that is exactly what Syne is saying... which isn't surprising, to be honest.
Quit Trolling, Syne
Am I supposed to believe you can't follow your own posts?
It's not called a "Muslim ban" for no reason, Syne. And remember, your pretense of not knowing what your own posts say only reminds people there's really no point in discussing anything with you. If even a modicum of basic honesty is too much to ask, they won't bother.
Am I supposed to believe you can't follow your own posts?
It's not called a "Muslim ban" for no reason, Syne. And remember, your pretense of not knowing what your own posts say only reminds people there's really no point in discussing anything with you. If even a modicum of basic honesty is too much to ask, they won't bother.
Fact is it is blatantly unconstitutional, and illegal by international law with out any sound reason for it and IT IS STILL being enforced.
WHY?
WHY?
Really? So black women aren't shown more deference among feminists (white women needing to check their privilege), there's no affirmative action, etc.? The only difference between Sunni and Shia, for security concerns, is that one tends to be state-sponsored. No one fears any terrorism from non-Muslims, but all the countries with the travel moratorium are largely and overtly anti-American, which crosses Sunni/Shiite lines.
While countries like Iran are overwhelmingly Shia, does their "death to America" chants and ambitions for nuclear weapons make them less of a threat than ISIS Sunnis? Sunnis from Iran would have more grounds for asylum, while Shia from Syria would. But both would be suspect and warrant the highest scrutiny, because their beliefs generally run counter to Western ideals. Is it Christian refugees who have skyrocketed the crime rates in many European countries?
Excellent, glad to see you admit that you have no real argument and that you are simply pandering to your religious preferences, you bigoted monster.But if your appeals to emotion make you feel righteous, you go right ahead.
Glad to see you accepted my invitation to continue your appeals to emotion, while claiming premature victories with ad hominems. Shows the quality of your arguments, if you could even call them that.
During the Crusades? Simple - I wouldn't wish something like the Crusades on anyone, so no, I wouldn't favor a Muslim over a Christian... I wouldn't favor one over the other, period.As with all things, it helps to change the players around to illuminate the reality. During the Crusades, would you favor helping a Muslim, from a Crusades-torn region, over a minority sect of Christianity? Would that make you Christophobic?
The Crusades was a fact, and so is the current turmoil in the Middle-East. You don't get to "wish" them away. You seem to favor wishful thinking over actually facing the question asked.
But then, even Christians in the Crusades weren't terrorists, so there's really no direct comparison.
"According to the just-released survey of Muslims, a majority (51%) agreed that “Muslims in America should have the choice of being governed according to shariah.” When that question was put to the broader U.S. population, the overwhelming majority held that shariah should not displace the U.S. Constitution (86% to 2%).
More than half (51%) of U.S. Muslims polled also believe either that they should have the choice of American or shariah courts, or that they should have their own tribunals to apply shariah. Only 39% of those polled said that Muslims in the U.S. should be subject to American courts." - http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy....uslims-shows-thousands-support-shariah-jihad/
So they want to be left alone to the extent that the Constitution may not apply to them.More than half (51%) of U.S. Muslims polled also believe either that they should have the choice of American or shariah courts, or that they should have their own tribunals to apply shariah. Only 39% of those polled said that Muslims in the U.S. should be subject to American courts." - http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy....uslims-shows-thousands-support-shariah-jihad/
So disagreeing with you is now trolling?
It's a straw man that I ever implied there was "no reason" for people referring to it as a "Muslim Ban". Hell, I even made the point that those countries are overwhelmingly Muslim. But if you want to call your own straw man dishonest...I agree. I was questioning your other straw man of it somehow being "accidental". It is no accident that overwhelmingly Muslim countries are the most overtly opposed to Western ideals.
How many USSR refugees, aside from Jews and other minorities, did we accept during the cold war? Aside from the Red Scare and the Cuban Missile Crisis, the threat level was similar.
"Entirely predictable"? San Bernardino, Fort Hood, Boston bombing, etc.?
Nope. That's a delusion. And it's irrelevant, btw - why are you bringing it up?
There is still some affirmative action, in some places - hardly relevant here. Why did you mention it?
So you see no security difference between religious sects that actually commit many acts of terrorism against the US, and those that do not? Between travelers from functioning States with normal documentation and refugees from war zones?
Last edited:
Nope.
No. The fact that they, in fact, engage in fewer terrorist attacks against us makes them less of a threat.
Who is more of a threat to you? The guy who yells at you that he's going to "deal with you" if your dog pees on his lawn again, or the gang on the corner who has mugged you twice already?
Agreed. And fortunately ALL asylum-seekers warrant the highest scrutiny, in a process that takes years.