Poll, how do you feel about Trump's entry ban on select nationals

[quade 3]

nolhtairt

Saudi Arabia and the US have a complicated relationship. They are our ally in the region.

Remember shortly after 9/11 when all over the US a question was asked, "why do they hate us?"

Please read your words I've quoted. THAT is why.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[winsor 185]

ryoder

***

Slate.com JUNE 24 2015

Possession of "Mein Kampf" was not 'banned' per some sources, and its publication was recently authorized by Bavaria.

It seems to depend somewhat on who you ask, and my limited experience with German authorities indicates that, if they say something is illegal, arguing the issue is a bad career move.

Come to think of it, that seems to apply pretty much across the board.

A bit more complicated;
The state of Bavaria held the copyright, and refused to allow publication.
But the copyright expired 2016-01-01 so it went into the public domain:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-35209185

But that last line gives one pause.

Even more complicated. I have an English translation, which was not covered by the Bavarian copyright - though I suspect it is every bit as dreadful a read in German.

Whenever I read the basis of any 'system of belief,' whether it be the Tanakh, Dianetics, The Communist Manifesto or Mein Kampf, I catch myself wondering what kind of retard would accept this dreck verbatim. Apparently all too many do.

[JerryBaumchen 1,046]

Hi winsor,

Quote

Even more complicated.

That it might be. However, you are doing a, 'Look over here, thingy.

You should simply admit you were wrong and SkyDekker is correct.

See how easy that is?

Jerry Baumchen

[winsor 185]

JerryBaumchen

Hi winsor,

Quote

Even more complicated.

That it might be. However, you are doing a, 'Look over here, thingy.

You should simply admit you were wrong and SkyDekker is correct.

See how easy that is?

Jerry Baumchen

I was wrong, SkyDekker is correct.

I'm not sure quite what I was thinking in referencing sources that supported what I was told when I lived there. I was misinformed, and have lost much face as a result.

[jakee 1,254]

nolhtairt

******
However, if Obama had not scrapped and scrubbed the immigrant vetting system, forcing Trump to start over from scratch... Who knows?

Please provide evidence for this claim.

Plenty of articles to choose from:

https://www.bing.com/search?q=Obama+scrapped+immigrant+vetting+system&form=PRUSEN&mkt=en-us&httpsmsn=1&refig=a953a169fac54c78950bbe1020d9b901&sp=-1&pq=obama+scrapped+imm&sc=0-18&qs=n&sk=&cvid=a953a169fac54c78950bbe1020d9b901

However, I will say that Obama did not use the system the last so and so years, for however long I do not know. But he did scrap it in the last weeks to prevent Trump from using it.

The legislation referenced in those links was not a vetting system, it was a registration system for people who are in the US. And it was scrapped because it had already been replaced by a new registration system.

If you actually read the articles in that search you will see that the contents do not support the your conclusion, and I hope you will therefore change your mind.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[DJL 232]

I didn't see this posted anywhere in here so I'll link it. He apparently isn't blocking entry from the correct countries:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2017/01/30/the-trump-white-house-keeps-justifying-the-entry-ban-by-citing-attacks-it-couldnt-have-prevented/?utm_term=.a3cd747cac4f

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[normiss 620]

If there is a Muslim ban, refugees can pretend they're Christians.
You know, just like Republicans do.

[Phil1111 908]

normiss

If there is a Muslim ban, refugees can pretend they're Christians.
You know, just like Republicans do.

Outstanding.

[DJL 232]

normiss

If there is a Muslim ban, refugees can pretend they're Christians.
You know, just like Republicans do.

NICE.

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[JerryBaumchen 1,046]

Hi winsor,

Quote

I'm not sure quite what . . .

In all fairness, I also thought it was illegal to own it.

I seem to remember coming across something that indicated that about 30 yrs ago and just never really got into looking at the laws regarding it.

It is OK to be wrong every now & then; I know I am,

Jerry Baumchen

[ryoder 1,381]

Looks like Charles Krauthammer didn't get the Fox memo that Trump can do no wrong:
http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/01/30/charles-krauthammer-trump-immigration-ban-amateurish-botched-way-protests-middle-east

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[ryoder 1,381]

Drumpf fires acting AG: https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/01/30/us/politics/trump-immigration-ban-memo.html

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[SivaGanesha 2]

gowlerk

The world is in an uproar, or at least a lot of the world outside America is. I keep seeing FB posts denouncing it, but few from American friends, and even some in support.

So I am wondering, how do Americans feel about it?

Are you arguing for American immigration regulations to be enforced evenly against all nations? I wonder how Canadians would react if the US decided to be less selective and demanded that all visitors go through the full rigours of a consular visa interview before being considered for a US visa--including Canadian visitors.

Now if we are merely talking about supporting the Muslim community then it is fairly simple. Focus on Quebec City where your support is desperately needed. Not on Washington DC where your support is unwelcome.

"It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

[mistercwood 287]

Royreader8812

But you glazed over the bit where the countries were named by the Obama administration and placed into legislation by them...

Quite convenient.

I suppose you condemn this order by trump, but supported Obama illegally bombing the said countries?

Amidst all this hysteria, we have billions of dollars of weapons going to kill people and that is ok... but inconvenienced travellers is abhorrent.

Makes sense.

No, I saw that part. The legislation is significantly different - if anything, the use of the exact same countries for such a broad order indicates laziness.

Regarding your other assumption, nice try. Probably my biggest disappointment with Obama was his continuation and subsequent expansion of extra-judicial drone strikes.

Also "inconvenienced travellers" is really taking the piss. As per my previous posts - these actions are unconstitutional, and should be denounced regardless of political leaning.

Always put in your mind - if the "other" guy was doing it, how pissed would I be? Then look up a little thing called precedent...

You are playing chicken with a planet - you can't dodge and planets don't blink. Act accordingly.

[wmw999 2,116]

Everyone's going to have an opinion on the US; when we sneeze, the rest of the world gets a cold. Pretty much everything we do impacts the world, so it's disingenuous to say that they shouldn't opine about the US.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[SkyDekker 1,121]

Quote

Are you arguing for American immigration regulations to be enforced evenly against all nations? I wonder how Canadians would react if the US decided to be less selective and demanded that all visitors go through the full rigours of a consular visa interview before being considered for a US visa--including Canadian visitors.

Many Canadians I talk to are doing everything in their power not to go to the US at this point. Meetings have been moved from the US to Canada.

Golf trips to the US have been moved to Caribbean.

Conference attendance evaluated and only those with urgent business requirements are attending.

Probably time we keep trump supporters out of Canada too. Recent events show they have terrorist tendencies.

[airdvr 197]

ryoder

Drumpf fires acting AG: https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/01/30/us/politics/trump-immigration-ban-memo.html

Yep. That's what happens when you refuse to do your job.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[airdvr 197]

SkyDekker

Quote

Are you arguing for American immigration regulations to be enforced evenly against all nations? I wonder how Canadians would react if the US decided to be less selective and demanded that all visitors go through the full rigours of a consular visa interview before being considered for a US visa--including Canadian visitors.

Many Canadians I talk to are doing everything in their power not to go to the US at this point. Meetings have been moved from the US to Canada.

Golf trips to the US have been moved to Caribbean.

Conference attendance evaluated and only those with urgent business requirements are attending.

Probably time we keep trump supporters out of Canada too. Recent events show they have terrorist tendencies.

Promise? Seriously you sound like the whiny actors in Hollywood who threatened to leave.

Some Canadians might start traveling to the Carribean instead until they take a hard look at the medical facilities available to them.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[SkyDekker 1,121]

airdvr

***Drumpf fires acting AG: https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/01/30/us/politics/trump-immigration-ban-memo.html

Yep. That's what happens when you refuse to do your job.

It is rather ironic Jeff Session asked her this exact question....considering he will be voted in as the new Puppet General this week.

[GeorgiaDon 340]

airdvr

***Drumpf fires acting AG: https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/01/30/us/politics/trump-immigration-ban-memo.html

Yep. That's what happens when you refuse to do your job.The AG's job is not to be a syncophant for the president. If the AG believes an EO is unconstitutional or violates existing law, it is their job to speak up. The chaos over this EO could have been avoided had President Bannon put aside his dictatorial tenancies and consulted with the people in the Dept of State and the Dept of Justice first.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[ryoder 1,381]

SkyDekker

******Drumpf fires acting AG: https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/01/30/us/politics/trump-immigration-ban-memo.html

Yep. That's what happens when you refuse to do your job.

It is rather ironic Jeff Session asked her this exact question....considering he will be voted in as the new Puppet General this week.
AG Nominee Sen. Sessions Once Told Fired Acting AG Sally Yates: You Have ‘to Say No to President’
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/ag-nominee-sen-sessions-once-told-fired-acting-ag-sally-n714566

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[airdvr 197]

GeorgiaDon

******Drumpf fires acting AG: https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/01/30/us/politics/trump-immigration-ban-memo.html

Yep. That's what happens when you refuse to do your job.The AG's job is not to be a syncophant for the president. If the AG believes an EO is unconstitutional or violates existing law, it is their job to speak up. The chaos over this EO could have been avoided had President Bannon put aside his dictatorial tenancies and consulted with the people in the Dept of State and the Dept of Justice first.

Don

Agreed. But that's not what happened here.

Quote

The mission of the Office of the Attorney General is to supervise and direct the administration and operation of the Department of Justice, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Drug Enforcement Administration, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Bureau of Prisons, Office of Justice Programs, and the U.S. Attorneys and U.S. Marshals Service, which are all within the Department of Justice.

The principal duties of the Attorney General are to:

Represent the United States in legal matters.

Supervise and direct the administration and operation of the offices, boards, divisions, and bureaus that comprise the Department.

Furnish advice and opinions, formal and informal, on legal matters to the President and the Cabinet and to the heads of the executive departments and agencies of the government, as provided by law.

Make recommendations to the President concerning appointments to federal judicial positions and to positions within the Department, including U.S. Attorneys and U.S. Marshals.

Represent or supervise the representation of the United States Government in the Supreme Court of the United States and all other courts, foreign and domestic, in which the United States is a party or has an interest as may be deemed appropriate.

Perform or supervise the performance of other duties required by statute or Executive Order.

The AG said she wouldn't defend the EO. It's AG's job to Represent the United States in legal matters. It doesn't say they get to decide the outcome. Do you honestly think any judge would side with this order as it stands today?

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[DJL 232]

Yeah...nice try. I don't see anything on there that forces the person to do the President's bidding without any opinion of it's legal validity.

Do you want syncopates in control of this country or do you want, as Trump promised, people who will be the best selections and do the best job?

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[billvon 2,380]

>The AG said she wouldn't defend the EO. It's AG's job to Represent the
>United States in legal matters.

Correct. It is her job to represent the US, not the President's orders. If he was sued over it, it would be her job to represent HIM - and to then advise him to take a plea bargain, since his EO was illegal.

Let's take a similar case. A company might make it their policy to do something illegal - say, refuse to hire Muslims. The chief counsel of that company would then be on the hook to defend people within that company who were prosecuted for it. It would NOT be his job to defend the policy, because the policy would be illegal. It WOULD be his job to point out as forcefully as possible that the policy is illegal and they should change it before they are sued.

[Rick 67]

billvon I have a question about the EO. You are saying it is illegal. I thought there have been precedents set as far as restricting immigrants from other countries. Can you tell me where the illegal part comes in?

You can't be drunk all day if you don't start early!