Jump to content

Welcome to Nightly.Net
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

The Trump Administration 2017-


1559 replies to this topic

#126
Marc DuQuesne

Marc DuQuesne

    Member

  • Members
  • 592 posts

I am not a big fan of the immigration ban the way it was rolled out, but that 9th Circuit decision infuriated me. The same people who enabled Obama to trounce separation of powers and roam way beyond his authority are now denying the current president the ability to exercise his lawful authority. They write a terribly convoluted decision that doesn't even mention the statute giving Trump the authority he was given by congress? Trump is right, it's a travesty.

 

Trump's problem is that he doesn't understand what his job is. I have heard him say several times "my first job is to defend the American people". That is not what he took an oath to protect. He is supposed to defend our freedoms and the form of government that ensures them. People are a renewable resource, the Constitution isn't.



#127
Ms. Spam

Ms. Spam

    MS.

  • Member
  • 17,884 posts

I read the decision and I think it was just fine.* But I'm liberal commie trash like the 9th Circuit is thought of. Trump just needs to rewrite his EO so it follows the law more closely and doesn't exclude citizens who have earned their green cards. And roll it out in a organized way. But you can't unring this bell. The damage is done. Sticking by the poorly executed plan in ALL aspects for the White House damages a already minimized administration's good will and political capital and has done nothing but make the administration look foolish and radicalizes and causes ill will in countries it would behoove the administration to be more friendlier to.

 

Honestly I think Trump/Bannon wanted to rush to action because we saw little movement in action quickly from the previous administration. The key is "look" like they're doing something. There was actually a lot that Obama and his administration did that is ignored or under-reported or hidden for security reasons or political reasons (drones) but the incoming admin needed flash and show and flexing its muscles to demonstrate to the people who voted for Trump that things were done to honor a campaign promise.

 

Now to swing back on what I just said in the first paragraph: The administration looks foolish and we have tons of people out their protesting but oddly people who were polled liked that he closed the borders for 90 days and approval was high for that move (again I wonder who is polled because I don't answer my phone if the number is not recognized by my phonebook). I think this illustrates the best part of the White House. They know kind of instinctually what they need to do but the implementation is such a hot mess of disorganization.

 

To veer in a completely different direction what do people think breaking up the 9th Circuit Court? We should probably make a separate thread about this but I find this interesting.

 

*to kind of poke Poe - on Twitter was where I got the link to the decision I read, the tweet had Curiam misspelled as CURIUM.



#128
Marc DuQuesne

Marc DuQuesne

    Member

  • Members
  • 592 posts

I think they are chasing their tails with this extreme vetting. I understand what they are trying to do and it's a valid goal, I just don't think they will be able to accomplish it. When the FBI (or whatever organization) does a background check the paperwork is only the beginning. Then you have to go verify it. Visit the subjects in their home, talk to their neighbors and friends and make sure every detail matches. How do you do that with a refugee population? If a persons life has been completely dismantled to the point nothing matches the paperwork and no references are available how do you verify anything?

 

I think they need to keep the numbers low enough that communities can assimilate them. We have had nothing but success so far in Idaho (which takes the 3rd highest number of refugees per capita), but the refugees have not become a large enough group to form their own community separate and distinct from the residents. They interact with Idahoans every day and Idahoans get to see them. Boise has taken more Syrian refugees than NYC and LA combined, yet whenever the morning radio host tries to do some fear-mongering dozens of people call in saying "spend some time volunteering with them, they are great people who need our support". If the numbers get too large it will become like the Latino immigrants around here, they arrived in huge floods. Most stick to their own groups and lots don't want to learn the language. They are stuck in a cycle of poor education, poor jobs, and resentment. They go work at the dairy 14 hours a day for minimum wage. Then they get old and their kids take over.



#129
monkeygirl

monkeygirl

    Advad Disagerer

  • Administrator
  • 22,202 posts
Look, let's be frank: if protection was a concern, the Muslim ban would have included the countries that all terrorists that have hurt us on US soil

have come from. This is Bannon testing the push-back of the most vocal Trump Admin opponents and testing the laws. And what exactly IS 'extreme vetting'?

I'd wager almost everyone who blindly thinks this is a good idea doesn't know what vetting is like NOW. Trump invented the phrase and like most of

his other brilliant ideas, he hasn't told anyone what it means. So if you think 'extreme vetting" is such a great idea, please tell me why, with details.

And tell me why what we do NOW isn't effective.

#130
Cerina

Cerina

    Now and forever...

  • Admin
  • 29,931 posts

Extreme vetting is how we're gonna make America great again. Duh. 



#131
Carrie Mathison

Carrie Mathison

    Member

  • Member
  • 1,108 posts

I read the decision and I think it was just fine.* But I'm liberal commie trash like the 9th Circuit is thought of. Trump just needs to rewrite his EO so it follows the law more closely and doesn't exclude citizens who have earned their green cards.


Spam, a green card holder is not a citizen. They are lawful permanent residents for a 10 year period.

#132
Carrie Mathison

Carrie Mathison

    Member

  • Member
  • 1,108 posts

Look, let's be frank: if protection was a concern, the Muslim ban would have included the countries that all terrorists that have hurt us on US soil

have come from.


The countries on the list are either because their governments would be unlikely to assist us or implement our procedures (such as Iran), or are failed states with little or no functioning government (such as Somalia).

The countries left off the list either actively assist the US (or at least make a show of it), or were left off for political reasons. Which countries do you think should've been on? I'm assuming Saudi Arabia? I've already explained that earlier in this thread:
 

The administration would probably love nothing more than to put Saudi Arabia on the list, but foreign policy interests preclude that possibility. Saudi Arabia, unfortunately, has long been the albatross around the US' neck, but there's not an easy way to get out from under the problem. Behind closed doors, people in both parties will privately admit that they wish we could just sever ties with them, but it's not possible for basically two reasons. First, their government, despite sometimes being two-faced, does generally work with the US with stuff like US bases in their country, cooperating on terrorism, and so on. For example, if we had a guy immigrating in that we wanted info on, the Saudi government would probably assist. If we told them, hey- we want you to screen immigrants using the following criteria, etc., they would probably agree. We might have to slip them some benjamins under the table, but they'd do it. This is in contrast to Iran, whose government would likely tell us to f-ck off. So, Iran is on the list and Saudi Arabia isn't, even though Iran is a much more liberal country and actually has civic institutions and stuff like that, and terrorist attacks on the US haven't involved Iranians (but do involve Saudis). (this should also answer your question on this Spam).

The second reason is rather obvious (oil).



#133
Tex

Tex

    Member

  • Member
  • 0 posts
I think monkeygirl is. The greatest person on earth. And. I think.

Tacos.
  • Darth Krawlie +1 this

#134
Darth Krawlie

Darth Krawlie

    privileged ****lord

  • Moderators
  • 34,901 posts
Now that's a post I can agree with.

#135
Ms. Spam

Ms. Spam

    MS.

  • Member
  • 17,884 posts
I had tacos for lunch. And a green card holder should be allowed in. They paid and did the right thing to be here in the US. So regardless of my poorly worded sentence they should not be kept out nor bullied into waving their rights.

#136
Carrie Mathison

Carrie Mathison

    Member

  • Member
  • 1,108 posts

Well obviously. That was the whole crux of the 9th circuit ruling- that lawful permanent residents have broader due process rights, and the executive order was too broad since it didn't distinguish between permanent residents and other visa holders (or those that have no visa and are applying for one).  The White House Counsel issued out guidance that the order was not to apply to permanent residents, but the 9th circuit said that guidance was not necessarily binding on any agency and so it could just circumvented, which is a fair point.  The order originally should have been clear about an exception for them, as I pointed out earlier.. I knew this was going to be the legal issue:
 

The sections that ban entry probably should've included a caveat for people that have already been admitted (current visa holders etc), and grandfathered them in. I would expect that maybe we'll get clarification on that from the White House Counsel or maybe Trump himself. Without the clarification, there is a potential issue- I haven't researched it thoroughly yet, but the legality of restricting people who are already green card holders is questionable. There is a section in the order that allows Homeland Security to admit people on a case-by-case basis, so that section could be used as a loophole to admit the current green card holders.

People that haven't been granted entry yet, though (i.e. new immigrants), the order can restrict legally.

If I were Trump, I would just re-issue the order but with an exception for the green card holders.  Of course, there's another side to this- the US District Court (in MA), ruled in the opposite direction, and declined to extend the restraining order since the executive order can arguably be read to exclude permanent residents as originally written (as the text implies that it only bars initial 'entry,' and not re-entry), and the permanent residents who had been detained were all released, so their claims are moot.

 

So there'll be a circuit split- whether the Supreme Court goes with MA or the 9th circuit is anyone's guess.  Maybe a 4-4 if Gorsuch can't get confirmed in time.  I think the safer play for Trump is just re-issue the order to specifically exclude the green card holders, and then it's on pretty solid ground.  Liberal groups will re-sue anyway, but they'll probably lose that one.  In its current form though... I have no idea... a 4-4 tie in the Supreme Court is not all that unlikely.


  • Good God a Bear +1 this

#137
Poe Dameron

Poe Dameron

    Member

  • Member
  • 2,485 posts
If I were Trump, I would just re-issue the order but with an exception for the green card holders.

 

That seems to be everyone's legal advice and a completely simple workaround that doesn't concede anything of substance.  I don't know if its to prove that the order wasn't sloppily drafted as has become the narrative or to prove the judge wrong on appeal, but for some reason the White House appears allergic to this simple solution that pretty much everyone came up with last week.



#138
Carrie Mathison

Carrie Mathison

    Member

  • Member
  • 1,108 posts

Yeah, and its frustrating because Trump doesn't lose anything by doing it.

 

Maybe he loses face a little bit, but who cares?  The people that thinks he's Hitler are going to think that no matter what, and his base won't care, just as long as something on immigration is done at the end of the day.

 

Trump's stubbornness and doubling-down has often been an asset, but this is a time when it won't be.  If it goes up to the Supreme Court and the 9th circuit decision is left in place due to a 4-4 tie, how does that help?  Trump can call the court political all he wants, and he may have a point, but it won't change the fact that the order will be struck down.

 

Better to just re-issue it now, then risk a loss in the courts and having to re-issue it later.


  • Good God a Bear +1 this

#139
monkeygirl

monkeygirl

    Advad Disagerer

  • Administrator
  • 22,202 posts
The countries on the list are either because their governments would be unlikely to assist us or implement our procedures (such as Iran), or are failed states with little or no functioning government (such as Somalia).

 

Does Iraq fit on this list now? They're also helping us fight ISIS
 

 

The countries left off the list either actively assist the US (or at least make a show of it), or were left off for political reasons. Which countries do you think should've been on? I'm assuming Saudi Arabia? I've already explained that earlier in this thread:

 

That's one-Pakistan is also a concern.

 

and also; tacos. Hard or soft.



#140
Darth Krawlie

Darth Krawlie

    privileged ****lord

  • Moderators
  • 34,901 posts
Soft. Hard is for posers.
  • Good God a Bear +1 this

#141
Tex

Tex

    Member

  • Member
  • 0 posts
I could go either way. Along as it has cat meat, I'm in.
  • monkeygirl +1 this

#142
Cerina

Cerina

    Now and forever...

  • Admin
  • 29,931 posts

Yeah, and its frustrating because Trump doesn't lose anything by doing it.

 

Maybe he loses face a little bit, but who cares?  

Uhh...Trump cares. That man's ego is his #1 priority. 


  • pavonis +1 this

#143
Ms. Spam

Ms. Spam

    MS.

  • Member
  • 17,884 posts

Flynn resigns!



#144
Poe Dameron

Poe Dameron

    Member

  • Member
  • 2,485 posts

Gotta admit, I didn't have Flynn in the Trump Administration dead pool.

 

The Good:

 

-It seems there's a line that Trump officials can cross after all.

-That line is within the national security realm, which is comforting.

 

The Bad:

 

-Flynn's one of the adults in the room for the Trump administration.  One of the guys we could look at and say that at least there's someone who knows his stuff in the inner circle.

-It could well be that Flynn did this out of his own sense of honor and Trump would have backed him if he hadn't resigned.  Any other administration and I would have assumed the opposite (well, at least I would have thought it was mutual for a military guy).

 

Overall, it's an unfortunate kerfuffle of the kind that is refreshingly typical of Washington.  I doubt the guy had an ill intentions, he just messed up (particularly in regards to misinforming Pence).  As a scalp to claim, his was a low priority, but became a necessary one.



#145
Svenn

Svenn

  • Members
  • 727 posts

Additional Good, in my opinion:

 

The leftover smell of this will make easing any pressure on Russia more politically difficult.


  • monkeygirl +1 this

#146
Marc DuQuesne

Marc DuQuesne

    Member

  • Members
  • 592 posts

 

The countries on the list are either because their governments would be unlikely to assist us or implement our procedures (such as Iran), or are failed states with little or no functioning government (such as Somalia).

 

Does Iraq fit on this list now? They're also helping us fight ISIS
 

 

 

They aren't helping us fight ISIS, we're helping them because they can't hack it. ISIS planted it's flag over 1/3 of Iraq almost instantly. That implies a large degree of local support for their movement to me. That seems like a pretty damned good reason to look hard at the people immigrating from there doesn't it?

 

Granted ISIS never would have happened if we didn't invade Iraq. That is history though. We have to deal with the situation that exists.



#147
Carrie Mathison

Carrie Mathison

    Member

  • Member
  • 1,108 posts

Yeah, basically that MG.  To be fair, Marc, their government is helping, or at least to the degree they can.  The problem is, the country has essentially split into 3 parts and the government has very little control over anything north of Baghdad.  Officially the country is with us against ISIS, but the situation on the ground beyond the sight of the politicians in Baghdad is a lot more complicated than that.  I could write pages more on this.. I read a great article on this that I'll try and dig up for you.

 

Regarding Pakistan... MG, a longer post will be coming when I have more time.  But in short, read what I wrote about Saudi Arabia.  It's a similar situation in many ways... they're on our side sorta-kinda, and we all wish we could just be rid of them....but... we're kinda stuck with em for the time being.  I'll write more about it later.  But for now... I think the omission of Pakistan from the list is a little more egregious than Saudi Arabia.  In some ways, Pakistan is like Iraq- to what degree the government actually controls the country (as opposed to the ISI, or the military), is a good question.  That being said, it's certainly not nearly as chaotic as Iraq, and... of course, the whole situation is made much more complicated since Pakistan is a nuclear-armed state.

 

Finally- to your question... uh, soft duh.  Hard are more difficult to eat, fall apart more easily, can't put as much stuff in them... how is this even a question?


  • monkeygirl +1 this

#148
monkeygirl

monkeygirl

    Advad Disagerer

  • Administrator
  • 22,202 posts

well-I WAFFLE sometimes because I love the crunch of a fried shell but then again there are nachos.

 

So-soft. CORN or FLOUR, tho?

 

Looking forward to more text from you (seriously). And would LOVE to know if you still have 8 ball hookups cause I can't ****ing find one that'll deliver to save my LIFE. In the rare instance I can GET it without my go-between DOING it and just giving me back my money, it's so stepped on I might as well just ask to buy crank.

 

ALL of this is, of course, a joke and highly illegal so I'm just joking, mkay?



#149
Darth Krawlie

Darth Krawlie

    privileged ****lord

  • Moderators
  • 34,901 posts

Corn and flour depends on mood and fillings. It's not as cut and dry as hard vs soft.

 

Tami I smoked a joint like 2 weeks ago. I'm not a smoker at all but what the hell right.



#150
monkeygirl

monkeygirl

    Advad Disagerer

  • Administrator
  • 22,202 posts
Did that make tacos taste better? ALSO coke>weed



Reply to this topic