**** Elections thread *****

[Poopadoop]

So, can you explain to me why you have a problem with Trump compromising and backing off from an extreme policy that you hated to begin with? Can you explain why people who didn't take Trump literally at every turn should now "see the light"?

Because earlier, it was pretty clear that you were equating the actual travel ban policy with a hypothetical 'muslim ban' policy presented during the campaign.

If a president decides to take the least disruptive course of action (it's only 7 countries, and it's temporary), how is that, in your words "egregious", or "dangerous"?

It seems like you're equating the moderate policy with an extreme one. Rather than admit that the president is not the fascist monster you thought he was, you now seem to be saying that this moderate policy is just the first step toward the extreme policy.

How do you see it as anything other than a muslim ban is a better question. It's aimed specifically at 7 muslim majority countries.

Guiliani as much as said Trump asked him for advice on putting in the muslim ban. Does this sound like someone who's taking a compromise position?

Finally, you do realise the ban was overturned by the court as unconstitutional because it is based on religion? How do you reconcile that with it not being a 'muslim ban'?

Better obviously would have been not to try the muslim ban in any shape or form in the first place.

[BananaStand]

How do you see it as anything other than a muslim ban is a better question. It's aimed specifically at 7 muslim majority countries.

If it were religious based, there wouldn't be 40 plus muslim-majority countries that are totally unaffected. Are Christians, Jews, and Buddhists allowed to travel to and from Yemen under this policy?

Guiliani as much as said Trump asked him for advice on putting in the muslim ban. Does this sound like someone who's taking a compromise position?

Sounds like he's getting advice from smart people on how to implement something that's realistic. So...to answer your question...yes

Finally, you do realise the ban was overturned by the court as unconstitutional because it is based on religion? How do you reconcile that with it not being a 'muslim ban'?

Alternative facts my friend.

First of all, it was not "overturned", it was halted through a "temporary restraining order". There is a difference. Second, the judge didn't make any ruling whatsoever on the constitutionality of the order. And therefore, he certainly didn't reference freedom of religion in his decision.

In order to grant the restraining order, he only had to determine 1) Plaintiffs are likely to succeed at a later date, 2) people in those states (washington and minnesota) will suffer irreparable harm if the order continues. And 3) the restraining order serves public interest.

Those are some extremely vague and broad criteria. He simply ruled that there was more harm than good by allowing the order to continue until the full case could be heard. His ruling is nowhere near the final say on this.

You know, lawyers have a saying that if you present a case enough times, to enough juries or judges, you can indict a ham sandwich. Dems went shopping for a restraining order and found a judge willing to cooperate with a temporary one until the full case could be heard. That's nowhere near a determination of constitutionality.

Where are you getting your information?????

A cherry picked judge making a highly subjective determination and issuing an order, the likes of which typically expire in 14 days, is a LOOOOOONG way from declaring the Executive Order as "unconstitutional". You're watching too much CNN maybe?

Funny, when Dems have a problem, they can demand a temporary, but immediate pause to the action until the details on further action can be sorted out. Does that strike anyone else as ironic? I mean, REALLY ironic?

Better obviously would have been not to try the muslim ban in any shape or form in the first place.

Yeah, cause that's working so well in Europe right now.

[Poopadoop]

If it were religious based, there wouldn't be 40 plus muslim-majority countries that are totally unaffected. Are Christians, Jews, and Buddhists allowed to travel to and from Yemen under this policy?

It's still a muslim ban since it's aimed at countries that are primarily muslim. If there were a way to ban only the muslims, I'm guessing Trump would have tried it.

Sounds like he's getting advice from smart people on how to implement something that's realistic. So...to answer your question...yes

Lol, sure, he 'compromised' by asking another far-righter how to implement it. That's a pretty generous interpretation of the word.

First of all, it was not "overturned", it was halted through a "temporary restraining order". There is a difference. Second, the judge didn't make any ruling whatsoever on the constitutionality of the order. And therefore, he certainly didn't reference freedom of religion in his decision.

In order to grant the restraining order, he only had to determine 1) Plaintiffs are likely to succeed at a later date, 2) people in those states (washington and minnesota) will suffer irreparable harm if the order continues. And 3) the restraining order serves public interest.

Those are some extremely vague and broad criteria. He simply ruled that there was more harm than good by allowing the order to continue until the full case could be heard. His ruling is nowhere near the final say on this.

It was presented by the lawyers as unconstitutional. Judge thought their case would win, so he gave a temporary restraining order. Pretty simple to understand on what basis the order was granted, since the ban is clearly based on religion.

Yeah, cause that's working so well in Europe right now.

There's certain countries where it's working out very well. Canada for example, who by the way offered to take in all the refugees Trump wants to turn away.

Some places took too many, like Germany, and of course there's going to be problems when you try to take in hundreds of thousands of refugees. That doesn't mean it was wrong of them to care about those people and try to help them.

Obviously it's a value judgment. If you want your country to stand only for itself, then you shouldn't give any foreign aid or accept any refugees. But if you want your country to be a leader in the world, you should be willing to help the world.

[BananaStand]

It's still a muslim ban since it's aimed at countries that are primarily muslim.

NO! It's aimed at countries where governments are either not centralized, hence they cannot provide the necessary vetting data, or more simply, their governments are just not cooperative.

Just because there is a common thread among the 7 countries, doesn't mean THAT is the criteria used. Tell me, what do YOU think differentiates those 7 countries from the other 40-something majority-muslim countries in the world? If it's a muslim ban, and the policy is religious based, then why did we stop so short?

If there were a way to ban only the muslims, I'm guessing Trump would have tried it.

You can read the guy's mind now?

Lol, sure, he 'compromised' by asking another far-righter how to implement it. That's a pretty generous interpretation of the word.

Holy shit man, in what universe is Giuliani a "far-righter"? How in the world could such a person be elected mayor in NYC?

It was presented by the lawyers as unconstitutional. Judge thought their case would win, so he gave a temporary restraining order. Pretty simple to understand on what basis the order was granted, since the ban is clearly based on religion.

Now you're reading judge's minds too? If this judge didn't grant the restraining order, they would have tried again until they found a judge who would. C'mon man, you know they can indict a ham sandwich if they want to. This guy was cherry-picked, and the criteria for the ruling is hugely subjective, broad, and vague. You're seeing things that aren't there again.

There's certain countries where it's working out very well. Canada for example, who by the way offered to take in all the refugees Trump wants to turn away.

It's not working out well in Canada. They tried to pass legislation to ban hijabs. That doesn't sound like a place where Muslims are very welcome. And I don't know what you mean by "working out well". How do you know that everyone admitted into canada is one of the "good guys"? The lack of an overt attack doesn't validate the quality of security.

Some places took too many, like Germany, and of course there's going to be problems when you try to take in hundreds of thousands of refugees. That doesn't mean it was wrong of them to care about those people and try to help them.

Too many? Exactly how many is too many? Put a number on it please?

It only took ONE guy to get into a truck and drive over a sidewalk full of people. That means if you only admit ONE immigrant into your country, there is a non-zero chance you'll be attacked.

I agree, 99.9% of those hundreds of thousands of people are probably totally ok. But it only takes ONE bad guy for us to have a problem. And if we're saying we can come up with measures to catch that ONE guy among hundreds of thousands, shouldn't we do it? Is a three month lead time really too much to ask?

Obviously it's a value judgment. If you want your country to stand only for itself, then you shouldn't give any foreign aid or accept any refugees. But if you want your country to be a leader in the world, you should be willing to help the world.

Who says we're unwilling to help the world? We just want 3 months to help ourselves develop the best security possible for our citizens, and then we'll open the doors back up to the world again.

I swear, every time a liberal argument is thwarted, they invent five new ones out of thin air. Preposterous assumptions, mind reading, conjecture, international disdain.....what else ya got?

[Poopadoop]

NO! It's aimed at countries where governments are either not centralized, hence they cannot provide the necessary vetting data, or more simply, their governments are just not cooperative.

Yup, it's aimed only at muslim countries. The fact that they haven't banned every single muslim country doesn't mean it's not a muslim ban, it just means it hasn't been universally applied.

Another interpretation of the 'centralized gov't' thing is that those excluded countries are coincidentally the same countries where Trump has economic interests.

You can read the guy's mind now?

Have you learned to read? I said 'I imagine', not 'I know'. See the difference?

Holy shit man, in what universe is Giuliani a "far-righter"? How in the world could such a person be elected mayor in NYC?

Lol, of course he is. I don't know how he got elected frankly, cause he seems like kind of a nutjob.

Now you're reading judge's minds too? If this judge didn't grant the restraining order, they would have tried again until they found a judge who would.

Do you know how many judges they had to try? I'm guessing it wasn't a large number. (And again, just so we're clear, I'm guessing, not saying I know)

It's not working out well in Canada. They tried to pass legislation to ban hijabs. That doesn't sound like a place where Muslims are very welcome.

The former, conservative (far right) gov't tried to ban them. Judge overruled them. Sound familiar?

Current gov't is very welcoming of refugees.

And I don't know what you mean by "working out well". How do you know that everyone admitted into canada is one of the "good guys"? The lack of an overt attack doesn't validate the quality of security.

Lol, well what criteria do you want to apply to the quality of security? If the lack of an overt attack doesn't count as evidence, I don't know what does.

It only took ONE guy to get into a truck and drive over a sidewalk full of people. That means if you only admit ONE immigrant into your country, there is a non-zero chance you'll be attacked.

I understand the argument. Like I said, it's a question of how much of a risk you're willing to accept for the sake of helping refugees.

Who says we're unwilling to help the world? We just want 3 months to help ourselves develop the best security possible for our citizens,

Ok, so you only want to stop helping the refugees for 3 months (for now). Got it.

and then we'll open the doors back up to the world again.

We'll see.

I swear, every time a liberal argument is thwarted, they invent five new ones out of thin air. Preposterous assumptions, mind reading, conjecture, international disdain.....what else ya got?

You're talking about yourself here, not me.

[BananaStand]

Yup, it's aimed only at muslim countries. The fact that they haven't banned every single muslim country doesn't mean it's not a muslim ban, it just means it hasn't been universally applied.

You can't be serious. If it's not universally applied, then there must be some OTHER criteria to determine who the ban applies to, and who it doesn't apply to.

Another interpretation of the 'centralized gov't' thing is that those excluded countries are coincidentally the same countries where Trump has economic interests.

This is beyond ridiculous. I mean, never mind the pure evil you're accusing Trump of, with absolutely no evidence whatsoever. But your understanding of facts is completely wrong. Where are you getting your information.

It's been widely publicized, if you pull your head out of the echo chamber, that the Obama administration wrote the list. It was Barack Obama who named these 7 countries as problematic. Where are his business interests?

Have you learned to read? I said 'I imagine', not 'I know'. See the difference?

Not only your opinions, but your perception of known facts is being skewed by your imagination. You should watch that.

Lol, of course he is. I don't know how he got elected frankly, cause he seems like kind of a nutjob.

It's so hard to take you seriously when you say such incendiary and outrageous thing about people who are obviously successful and capable. When I hear people talk about Rudy, the word "populist" comes up more than occasionally. "far right nutjob" seems totally incompatible with his image and reputation. Again, where are you getting your information?

Do you know how many judges they had to try? I'm guessing it wasn't a large number. (And again, just so we're clear, I'm guessing, not saying I know)

I don't know how many judges they had to try. Maybe they already knew who would play ball and who wouldn't. The point is, there are a lot of judges, and when the criteria for getting this temporary restraining order is so broad, vague, and subjective, it's hard to believe that ALL the judges would say no.

The former, conservative (far right) gov't tried to ban them. Judge overruled them. Sound familiar?
Current gov't is very welcoming of refugees.

Well maybe they caught our Obama-itis. That's the disease where elected officials do whatever they want regardless of what ordinary people think. Last I heard, ordinary people in Canada are leaving pigs heads on Mosque door steps. There's obviously some tension there. And what's Canada doing that Sweden isn't?

Lol, well what criteria do you want to apply to the quality of security? If the lack of an overt attack doesn't count as evidence, I don't know what does.

using your criteria, we could assume that on Sept 10, 2001 we were all totally safe. We know now, that was monumentally untrue. It sounds like you're saying any immigrant who doesn't commit violence after taking his first steps off the plane, must be a good guy. And terrorist organizations wouldn't only sent attackers. They would send planners, recruiters, networkers, messengers, and all kinds of other operatives that we definitely don't want wandering around America.

I understand the argument. Like I said, it's a question of how much of a risk you're willing to accept for the sake of helping refugees.

If it's a risk/reward question, what's the risk in a 3 month pause? Why is it such a terrible hardship for a refugee to wait an extra 3 months. I keep hearing about how long and arduous our existing process is, if it takes some folks 20 months instead of 17 months....where is the risk? And who knows, maybe our new vetting process cuts that down to 12 months, or 6. Why does it have to be all bad news for refugees?

Ok, so you only want to stop helping the refugees for 3 months (for now). Got it.

That's a misrepresentation of motive. Saying I want to stop helping refugees is stating alternative facts. I want to make sure America is safe. And that means we need to know who's coming in and out.

one of the arguments against the travel ban is that we already have a thorough vetting process, and that argument is usually provided by an immigrant/refugee who went through the process or someone with some visibility to the process. They never mention what the FBI, CIA, and other intelligence agencies are doing behind the scenes. All I hear about is how they have to get so many letters from friends about their character, or how they have to endure extensive interviews.

Well none of that proves anything. I don't know what procedures are necessary to adequately vet a Syrian refugee, but the people who do, say it's not good enough. I'm guessing here, but I imagine our intelligence services make a lot of behind the scenes inquiries with other governments regarding someone's education history, work history, where they lived, arrest records, etc etc. etc.

If we can't verify that information with the central government in Syria....we're guessing. Pakistan will tell us that shit. Saudi Arabia will tell us that shit. Sudan either won't, or can't. This was Comey's point. We can query our own databases, and interview the bejeesus out of these people until the end of time, and it won't help us make a confident determination.

You wouldn't be in favor of letting people through with no vetting, but that's essentially what we're doing if one of these refugees has never made a blip on an American radar. 18 months of interviews doesn't seem to help enough. At least that's what the people in charge of this very thing are saying. 18 month, 180 months, or 18 minutes. It makes no difference in our determination. That's what needs to be fixed before we open the doors again. Why is that a religiously prejudicial idea?

That's a dangerous situation for Americans. I don't want to hurt refugees, but I'm more concerned with keeping Americans safe. And if the only downside is that Yemeni people have to sit in the waiting room for a few more months....I really don't give a fuck.

[Poopadoop]

You can't be serious. If it's not universally applied, then there must be some OTHER criteria to determine who the ban applies to, and who it doesn't apply to.

Yes I am serious. It's clearly targeted at muslim countries. Just because it wasn't applied to every single muslim country in the world doesn't mean it wasn't targeted at muslim countries. Don't see how that's so hard to understand.

This is beyond ridiculous. I mean, never mind the pure evil you're accusing Trump of, with absolutely no evidence whatsoever. But your understanding of facts is completely wrong. Where are you getting your information.

It's been widely publicized, if you pull your head out of the echo chamber, that the Obama administration wrote the list. It was Barack Obama who named these 7 countries as problematic. Where are his business interests?

It's politically convenient to have this fact to bring up. Unfortunately, even if it was Obama's military who labeled these as potentially dangerous countries, it wasn't him who decided to do a ban on these countries. It was your guy.

Not only your opinions, but your perception of known facts is being skewed by your imagination.

Again, talking about yourself here.

It's so hard to take you seriously when you say such incendiary and outrageous thing about people who are obviously successful and capable. When I hear people talk about Rudy, the word "populist" comes up more than occasionally. "far right nutjob" seems totally incompatible with his image and reputation. Again, where are you getting your information?

Just from watching him. He talks utter shit. And ya, when he's advising Trump on a muslim ban , that certainly qualifies as far-right wing behavior.

I don't know how many judges they had to try. Maybe they already knew who would play ball and who wouldn't. The point is, there are a lot of judges, and when the criteria for getting this temporary restraining order is so broad, vague, and subjective, it's hard to believe that ALL the judges would say no.

Hmm, you'd think Trump would be able to find a sympathetic judge too then. Why no luck?

Well maybe they caught our Obama-itis. That's the disease where elected officials do whatever they want regardless of what ordinary people think. Last I heard, ordinary people in Canada are leaving pigs heads on Mosque door steps. There's obviously some tension there.

Those aren't ordinary people doing that lol. You try to make it sound like every day some guy stops off at a mosque on his way to work and leaves a pig's head on the doorstep. Stop talking shit.

using your criteria, we could assume that on Sept 10, 2001 we were all totally safe. We know now, that was monumentally untrue. It sounds like you're saying any immigrant who doesn't commit violence after taking his first steps off the plane, must be a good guy. And terrorist organizations wouldn't only sent attackers. They would send planners, recruiters, networkers, messengers, and all kinds of other operatives that we definitely don't want wandering around America.

Again, putting words in my mouth. Why don't you argue with what I say instead of turn it into something I didn't say?

If it's a risk/reward question, what's the risk in a 3 month pause? Why is it such a terrible hardship for a refugee to wait an extra 3 months. I keep hearing about how long and arduous our existing process is, if it takes some folks 20 months instead of 17 months....where is the risk? And who knows, maybe our new vetting process cuts that down to 12 months, or 6. Why does it have to be all bad news for refugees?

60,000 existing visas were cancelled. Families were kept apart, students kept from their universities, doctors not allowed to return to the country. Your country is viewed as an asshole nation ruled by racists. How's that for some risks. But hey, if you're happy with that, so be it.

That's a misrepresentation of motive. Saying I want to stop helping refugees is stating alternative facts. I want to make sure America is safe. And that means we need to know who's coming in and out.

one of the arguments against the travel ban is that we already have a thorough vetting process, and that argument is usually provided by an immigrant/refugee who went through the process or someone with some visibility to the process. They never mention what the FBI, CIA, and other intelligence agencies are doing behind the scenes. All I hear about is how they have to get so many letters from friends about their character, or how they have to endure extensive interviews.

Well none of that proves anything. I don't know what procedures are necessary to adequately vet a Syrian refugee, but the people who do, say it's not good enough. I'm guessing here, but I imagine our intelligence services make a lot of behind the scenes inquiries with other governments regarding someone's education history, work history, where they lived, arrest records, etc etc. etc.

If we can't verify that information with the central government in Syria....we're guessing. Pakistan will tell us that shit. Saudi Arabia will tell us that shit. Sudan either won't, or can't. This was Comey's point. We can query our own databases, and interview the bejeesus out of these people until the end of time, and it won't help us make a confident determination.

You wouldn't be in favor of letting people through with no vetting, but that's essentially what we're doing if one of these refugees has never made a blip on an American radar. 18 months of interviews doesn't seem to help enough. At least that's what the people in charge of this very thing are saying. 18 month, 180 months, or 18 minutes. It makes no difference in our determination. That's what needs to be fixed before we open the doors again. Why is that a religiously prejudicial idea?

That's a dangerous situation for Americans. I don't want to hurt refugees, but I'm more concerned with keeping Americans safe. And if the only downside is that Yemeni people have to sit in the waiting room for a few more months....I really don't give a fuck.

Apparently a lot of your countrymen and women do give a fuck. Hence all the protests and legal challenges.