ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 5th February 2017, 05:23 PM   #41
A'isha
Miss Schoolteacher
 
A'isha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Birmingham, AL
Posts: 14,965
Originally Posted by sunmaster14 View Post
Well, that's a misleading headline. Nowhere in there does the article present any evidence that he is conservative in a political sense, or even in his approach to the law. It appears that one former colleague claimed that he was conservative in a different sense of the word, and that's all the evidence that there is.
Conservative in a sense you apparently don't like, and the article also notes his donations to the Republican party and Republican candidates, as well as the praise he received from Republican Senator Orrin Hatch (who will undoubtedly now be called a lefty so you can continue to maintain that the judge is a "liberal nutball").

Originally Posted by sunmaster14 View Post
Robart also doesn't seem to understand logic or statistics. His remark about blacks being shot at twice the rate as their proportion in the population is profoundly stupid. This was after a comprehensive work by a black Harvard economics professor which showed there was no statistical evidence of racial bias in police shootings.
Yeah, about his understanding of logic and statistics ...

Quote:
A study reported by the New York Times on Monday claimed to find “surprising new evidence” that there is no racial bias in police shootings. But the study, and the New York Times’ reporting, uses a small sample of data that leads to simplistic conclusions.

The author of the study, Roland G Fryer Jr, analyzed 1,332 shootings between 2000 and 2015. However, the way he and a group of student researchers created their data was largely by coding police narratives rather than considering the testimonials of witnesses or suspects (assuming that the suspects were not killed by the police in the shooting). The study therefore assumes police reports are unbiased sources of information about facts like whether or not the officer shoots the suspect before being attacked.

There are other serious weaknesses in the research. To understand lethal use of force, Fryer looked at police reports from just one city: Houston. There, he found that blacks were either less likely to be shot by an officer or there was no difference between blacks and whites. Even if the data from Houston were accurate, it is doubtful the city is representative of the country.

The Houston police department also allowed the researchers to look at “interactions with police where lethal force may have been justified”. But that data assumes that all officers make fair and objective decisions about the lethal use of force – decisions that are not affected by the race of the suspect.

Looking at just one other city would suggest very different conclusions. In Chicago, a review of the reports of each police-involved shooting looked at fatal and non-fatal shootings. Despite the city being one third black, a disproportionate 118 black males (44 of them fatal) were involved in the 150 shootings recorded since 2010.
Originally Posted by sunmaster14 View Post
And in his questioning of the lawyer for the federal government - Michelle Bennett (who did an excellent job in my opinion) - he seemed to think the fact that no terrorist had yet come from one of the seven countries on the travel ban list was relevant. It's certainly disappointing to find such an innumerate and illogical judge, but, well, district court judges are not really appointed based on merit.
Yeah, what kind of crazy person would think that the actual terrorist threat represented by people from those countries would actually have any bearing on a case about a travel ban justified by the supposed terror threat represented by people from those countries?
__________________
When I get a little money I buy books; and if any is left I buy food and clothes - Desiderius Erasmus

"Does [A'isha] want to end up in a gas chamber, I wonder? Because this is where the whole thing will end" - McHrozni
A'isha is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th February 2017, 08:38 PM   #42
sunmaster14
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 9,608
Originally Posted by A'isha View Post
Conservative in a sense you apparently don't like, and the article also notes his donations to the Republican party and Republican candidates, as well as the praise he received from Republican Senator Orrin Hatch (who will undoubtedly now be called a lefty so you can continue to maintain that the judge is a "liberal nutball").
Nomination to and subsequent confirmation of judges to one of the District Courts in a state are basically done as a courtesy to the Senators from that state. Neither President Bush nor Senator Hatch gave a crap about Robart's political views, nor could they possibly know them. Prior to his appointment, he was a litigator at a private firm. He was essentially chosen by Senator Patty Murray, who, as we know, is a pretty liberal Democrat.

I will note that it's interesting how the mainstream media makes a big deal of the fact that Robart was appointed by Bush even though appointments don't become ideological until you get to the appellate court. I don't remember the media ever noting this when a judge appointed by a Democrat overruled the Obama administration (which actually happened at the appellate level from time to time).

Quote:
Really dumb analysis. There is literally nothing in there which is a valid rebuttal to the research I cited. Most of it is a series of non sequiturs, and the alleged flaws in the research aren't flaws as far as I can see.

Quote:
Yeah, what kind of crazy person would think that the actual terrorist threat represented by people from those countries would actually have any bearing on a case about a travel ban justified by the supposed terror threat represented by people from those countries?
You missed my point. The actual terrorist threat currently from the citizens of a particular country is not necessarily related to the number of terrorist acts committed in the past by citizens of that country. Aside from Iran, the countries on Trump's list (which is identical to Obama's list of countries which posed a terrorist threat) are failed states with a significant ISIS presence. And Iran has a government which won't cooperate with us to give reliable background information on their citizens who wish to travel here. What happened in the past is irrelevant. Security risk assessment should be prospective.

In any case, it's ridiculous for a judge in Seattle to be insinuating that the executive branch is wrong about which countries are the gravest threats to national security. Not only does that judge not have access to any classified national security information, but he has no expertise in national security matters. The guy is just a bow tie wearing buffoon. I watched the whole hearing, and he struck me as a pompous ass with a poor grasp of the issues.

Last edited by sunmaster14; 5th February 2017 at 08:39 PM.
sunmaster14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th February 2017, 10:43 PM   #43
Doghouse Reilly
Adrift on an uncharted sea
 
Doghouse Reilly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,935
Originally Posted by NoahFence View Post
And....he lost
No, he didn't. The ruling doesn't come in until tomorrow. The court just refused to do an immediate revocation of the TRO. They haven't yet ruled.

ETA: Of course, they may rule against him. But they haven't, yet.

Last edited by Doghouse Reilly; 5th February 2017 at 11:02 PM.
Doghouse Reilly is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th February 2017, 03:29 AM   #44
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
 
quadraginta's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Central Vale of Humility
Posts: 16,535
Originally Posted by sunmaster14 View Post
<snip>

You missed my point. The actual terrorist threat currently from the citizens of a particular country is not necessarily related to the number of terrorist acts committed in the past by citizens of that country. Aside from Iran, the countries on Trump's list (which is identical to Obama's list of countries which posed a terrorist threat) are failed states with a significant ISIS presence. And Iran has a government which won't cooperate with us to give reliable background information on their citizens who wish to travel here. What happened in the past is irrelevant. Security risk assessment should be prospective.

<snip>

And the assessment of security risk from Muslim majority Middle East countries which actually have a significant and substantial record of being the source of actual terrorists who have killed American citizens on U.S. soil should be entirely ignored. Leaving them out of the ban completely. Because ...?

(I'm sure the fact that Trump's businesses have current or potential interest in those countries which were so inexplicitly exonerated is purely coincidental. )
__________________
"It never does just what I want, but only what I tell it."
quadraginta is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th February 2017, 04:04 AM   #45
Arcade22
Illuminator
 
Arcade22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sweden
Posts: 3,653
Originally Posted by quadraginta View Post
(I'm sure the fact that Trump's businesses have current or potential interest in those countries which were so inexplicitly exonerated is purely coincidental. )
Although it's always important to make a case about his conflicts of interest, of which there are plenty, i think there are better explanations for why Trump left out so many Muslim-majority countries including those experiencing high levels of political violence and conflict.

Despite the fact that countries such as Egypt, Pakistan and Turkey have ongoing insurgencies and experience terrorist attacks on a regular basis these are also close American allies. These countries have had long term relations with America and are major customers of US military products among other things.

If prohibiting people from the 7 countries from traveling to the US was actually about "protecting the American people" he would have included them. Obviously it's not about protecting the American people rather it's ultimately about pandering to his white trash voters. Islamophobic attitudes are at an all-time-high and by continuing to ferment hostility and suspicion against Muslims he's going to try and maintain them as a socially acceptable target for hatred and contempt.
__________________
Freedom you all want, you want freedom. Why then do you haggle over a more or less? Freedom can only be the whole of freedom; a piece of freedom is not freedom. You despair of the possibility of obtaining the whole of freedom, freedom from everything - yes, you consider it insanity even to wish this? - Well, then leave off chasing after the phantom, and spend your pains on something better than the - unattainable. - Max Stirner

Last edited by Arcade22; 6th February 2017 at 04:06 AM.
Arcade22 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th February 2017, 04:16 AM   #46
The Great Zaganza
Graduate Poster
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 1,636
The concept behind the ban is routed in the idea that terrorists act similar to an army, with allegiance to a specific country.
This is of course not the case with any current terrorist organizations targeting the US.

That is why individual vetting is required - blanket bans create a false sense of security and limit and important avenue of intelligence gathering.
__________________
“Today you will meet a three-ton rhinoceros called Desmond.”
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th February 2017, 04:56 AM   #47
Norman Alexander
Master Poster
 
Norman Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 2,011
Headline should read: TRUMP STUCK IN OWN LEGAL FLYPAPER
__________________
...our governments are just trying to protect us from terror. In the same way that someone banging a hornets’ nest with a stick is trying to protect us from hornets. Frankie Boyle, Guardian, July 2015
Norman Alexander is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th February 2017, 04:57 AM   #48
sunmaster14
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 9,608
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
The concept behind the ban is routed in the idea that terrorists act similar to an army, with allegiance to a specific country.
This is of course not the case with any current terrorist organizations targeting the US.

That is why individual vetting is required - blanket bans create a false sense of security and limit and important avenue of intelligence gathering.
Missing the point once again. How do you vet individuals who are citizens of a failed state or an uncooperative government? Where do you get the information about their background, and how do you confirm it?
sunmaster14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th February 2017, 05:12 AM   #49
Garrison
Illuminator
 
Garrison's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 3,153
Originally Posted by sunmaster14 View Post
Missing the point once again. How do you vet individuals who are citizens of a failed state or an uncooperative government? Where do you get the information about their background, and how do you confirm it?
Better question, what is the specific reason Donald Trump singled out the citizens of these seven countries for special treatment? Is there a flaw in the current system? Intelligence pointing to an imminent attack? because to date as far as I can see this ban is a piece of pure political theatre to appease his fan base.
__________________
So I've started a blog about my writing. Check it out at: http://fourth-planet-problem.blogspot.com/
Garrison is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th February 2017, 05:32 AM   #50
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
 
thaiboxerken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 27,466
Originally Posted by Garrison View Post
Better question, what is the specific reason Donald Trump singled out the citizens of these seven countries for special treatment? Is there a flaw in the current system? Intelligence pointing to an imminent attack? because to date as far as I can see this ban is a piece of pure political theatre to appease his fan base.
Trump blames credits Obama for the pick of countries.
__________________
All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power & profit - Thomas Paine
thaiboxerken is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th February 2017, 05:34 AM   #51
The Great Zaganza
Graduate Poster
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 1,636
Originally Posted by sunmaster14 View Post
Missing the point once again. How do you vet individuals who are citizens of a failed state or an uncooperative government? Where do you get the information about their background, and how do you confirm it?
The way you do it?
Via interviews, asking local aid organizations etc.?

And if you can't get the data, you simply don't accept them: that is the way it is done.
You seem to labor under the impression that no data = automatic entry acceptance.

In any case, generalized statements about these states are purely wrong: there are plenty of people that can qualify even under the strict US vetting (strongest in the world).
__________________
“Today you will meet a three-ton rhinoceros called Desmond.”
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th February 2017, 05:50 AM   #52
Lothian
should be banned
 
Lothian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 13,255
Originally Posted by sunmaster14 View Post
In any case, it's ridiculous for a judge in Seattle to be insinuating that the executive branch is wrong about which countries are the gravest threats to national security. Not only does that judge not have access to any classified national security information, but he has no expertise in national security matters. The guy is just a bow tie wearing buffoon. I watched the whole hearing, and he struck me as a pompous ass with a poor grasp of the issues.
We had a similar case here (Parliamentary vote on triggering brexit) where judges making a decision were branded "enemies of the people" by the right wing press. Turned out that the highest court in the land agreed with the judges. Rather than being an enemy of the people they were people doing their job applying the law of the land and applying it correctly.

Time will tell if the judge is this case got the law right and who, you or him is a buffoon with a poor grasp of the issues. Either way you should not criticise him for making a ruling on the issue put in front of him.

You are arguing for putting the judgement of the president above the law.

My understanding is that the constitution of the US only allows executive powers subject to judicial review.

Putting the decisions of the president above the law was tried and failed in an experiment ending on August 8, 1974.

If you want a dictatorship and the constitution of the United States to be torn up you are entitled to that view but I suspect you may be in the minority.

Last edited by Lothian; 6th February 2017 at 05:52 AM.
Lothian is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th February 2017, 05:59 AM   #53
sunmaster14
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 9,608
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
The way you do it?
Via interviews, asking local aid organizations etc.?

And if you can't get the data, you simply don't accept them: that is the way it is done.
You seem to labor under the impression that no data = automatic entry acceptance.
Do you know that's what the INS and DHS are doing? I don't. I have no idea.

Quote:
In any case, generalized statements about these states are purely wrong: there are plenty of people that can qualify even under the strict US vetting (strongest in the world).
It's certainly efficient to have blanket bans. What good do we derive from accepting visitors and/or immigrants from failed states? If we accept the moderate and productive people (and there is no guarantee of that), then we make the failed states even less likely to succeed. And if we accept the immoderate or unproductive people, we hurt ourselves. Like I've said before, there is no shortage of moderate, productive people who actually share our values who want to emigrate to the US. Immigration should be for our benefit, not for the rest of the world's benefit.
sunmaster14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th February 2017, 06:09 AM   #54
Lothian
should be banned
 
Lothian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 13,255
Originally Posted by sunmaster14 View Post
It's certainly efficient to have blanket bans. What good do we derive from accepting visitors and/or immigrants from failed states? If we accept the moderate and productive people (and there is no guarantee of that), then we make the failed states even less likely to succeed. And if we accept the immoderate or unproductive people, we hurt ourselves. Like I've said before, there is no shortage of moderate, productive people who actually share our values who want to emigrate to the US. Immigration should be for our benefit, not for the rest of the world's benefit.
I think the two highlighted parts are incomparable.

Moderate people are compassionate and don't discriminate on race or religion.


Note that the above applies to "our values" as you appear to apply it. Most people in America have different values if Trump's 44% approval rating is anything to go by.
Lothian is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th February 2017, 06:13 AM   #55
The Great Zaganza
Graduate Poster
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 1,636
Originally Posted by sunmaster14 View Post
Do you know that's what the INS and DHS are doing? I don't. I have no idea.
You do know that almost all 3-letter agencies are asked for info on anyone considered, right?

I do know a bit about the procedures, and the way it works is that either candidate names come via the local American officials (because they have been working for and with US forces etc. locally) , or they are part of a list compiled by aid workers for the UN or Red Cross or similar operating refugee camps or in them, such as IOM.
These people know who has a shot at making the grade for a US entry and don't waste time with people with sketchy data: the US takes so few people that it is easy to fill up the quote with the best of the best. And then they wait for 2 years for their vetting to finish. Only then do they get to fly to the US.
For a terrorist, there is literally no slower, less promising way to get to the US: with just a bit of cash and a good fake/stolen passport, they can just fly themselves: visa checks a way less tight than refugee status checks.
__________________
“Today you will meet a three-ton rhinoceros called Desmond.”
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th February 2017, 06:14 AM   #56
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 59,724
Originally Posted by Lothian View Post
Moderate people are compassionate and don't discriminate on race or religion.
"Moderate" is much broader than that. Depending on the situation, a moderate might well discriminate based on race or religion.
__________________
"What is best in life?"
Argumemnon is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th February 2017, 06:18 AM   #57
sunmaster14
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 9,608
Originally Posted by Lothian View Post
We had a similar case here (Parliamentary vote on triggering brexit) where judges making a decision were branded "enemies of the people" by the right wing press. Turned out that the highest court in the land agreed with the judges. Rather than being an enemy of the people they were people doing their job applying the law of the land and applying it correctly.

Time will tell if the judge is this case got the law right and who, you or him is a buffoon with a poor grasp of the issues. Either way you should not criticise him for making a ruling on the issue put in front of him.
I don't need judges to tell me what's right and wrong. I can think for myself. Not a single person in this thread except for me has tried to provide any sort of commentary on the judge's decision. Either for or against. All of the information is available. The briefs by both the states and the federal government are available online, and the entire oral hearing is as well. As is the astonishingly deficient opinion by the judge. And why shouldn't I criticize the judge for making a ruling that I disagree with? He is grandstanding and going well beyond (way, way, way beyond) his authority.

Quote:
You are arguing for putting the judgement of the president above the law.
According to the law, the judgment of the President regarding which aliens outside the US to bar from entry is supreme.

Quote:
My understanding is that the constitution of the US only allows executive powers subject to judicial review.
Well your understanding is completely wrong. The Constitution is absolutely silent on judicial review. In fact, the three branches are supposed to be co-equal, which means the judiciary should not have veto power over the actions and policies of the executive branch. You would need two branches working in concert to block the power of the third.

Quote:
Putting the decisions of the president above the law was tried and failed in an experiment ending on August 8, 1974.
The threat of impeachment put an end to Nixon's rein. Impeachment is a political process, and it is available to end Trump's rein as well. It's not currently a threat, because, contrary to the hysterical reaction of the mainstream media and the left (but I repeat myself), Trump's order is not particularly extreme, and it is supported by the majority of the American people (the silent majority apparently).

Quote:
If you want a dictatorship and the constitution of the United States to be torn up you are entitled to that view but I suspect you may be in the minority.
I don't want a dictatorship by an unelected judiciary either. As I've noted before, there are 91 District Courts in the US (not counting the territories). If any one of these courts has the power to stay, on a nationwide basis, an executive order dealing with foreign threats to national security, what are the chances that the President can take any action to protect the country against immediate threats? The probability that you find some crazy judge somewhere (you have 91 chances) is quite high. There are a lot of nutty judges, particularly at the district court level. These guys are not chosen for merit. They are chosen for their ability to schmooze with local politicians.
sunmaster14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th February 2017, 06:24 AM   #58
sunmaster14
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 9,608
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
You do know that almost all 3-letter agencies are asked for info on anyone considered, right?

I do know a bit about the procedures, and the way it works is that either candidate names come via the local American officials (because they have been working for and with US forces etc. locally) , or they are part of a list compiled by aid workers for the UN or Red Cross or similar operating refugee camps or in them, such as IOM.
These people know who has a shot at making the grade for a US entry and don't waste time with people with sketchy data: the US takes so few people that it is easy to fill up the quote with the best of the best. And then they wait for 2 years for their vetting to finish. Only then do they get to fly to the US.
For a terrorist, there is literally no slower, less promising way to get to the US: with just a bit of cash and a good fake/stolen passport, they can just fly themselves: visa checks a way less tight than refugee status checks.
Not sure if you realize this, but the executive order dealt with visas in addition to refugees. In fact, it was only with respect to visas, that the action was targeted to the 7 countries in question. The temporary (120 day) suspension of refugees was worldwide.
sunmaster14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th February 2017, 06:26 AM   #59
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 59,724
Originally Posted by sunmaster14 View Post
I don't need judges to tell me what's right and wrong. I can think for myself.
I'm sure you also don't need climatologists to tell you if there's a warming trend or not, or an economist to tell you if supply-side is bonkers or not, or a biologist to tell you if evolution is true or not, or a doctor to tell you if you have a brain tumour or not.

You can think for yourself, and apparently that means that everybody else is wrong when they disagree with you, even when they clearly know their stuff more than you.
__________________
"What is best in life?"
Argumemnon is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th February 2017, 06:29 AM   #60
The Great Zaganza
Graduate Poster
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 1,636
Originally Posted by sunmaster14 View Post
Not sure if you realize this, but the executive order dealt with visas in addition to refugees. In fact, it was only with respect to visas, that the action was targeted to the 7 countries in question. The temporary (120 day) suspension of refugees was worldwide.
so, you think Trump saved us all by banning people from one country, but not the one next to it? You think it's impossible to get a passport from another country if you are not tightly vetted, like you would be for refugee status?

For all kinds of reason, visa vetting will never be as tight as refugee vetting, which is why getting upset about Syrian refugees is plain illogical.
__________________
“Today you will meet a three-ton rhinoceros called Desmond.”
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th February 2017, 06:34 AM   #61
sunmaster14
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 9,608
Originally Posted by Lothian View Post
I think the two highlighted parts are incomparable.

Moderate people are compassionate and don't discriminate on race or religion.
That's a stupid assertion. A typically kumbaya, bleeding heart, virtue signaling one from leftists.

Also, what is so special about religion that we can't discriminate based on it? How do you define a religion? Why isn't naziism a religion? Or communism? In order to be a moderate, do I have to not discriminate against somebody who believes blasphemy, or apostasy, or homosexuality deserves the death penalty? And what do you mean by discriminate? Do I have to let anybody visit my house, regardless of whether or not I like their political views?

Quote:
Note that the above applies to "our values" as you appear to apply it. Most people in America have different values if Trump's 44% approval rating is anything to go by.
No, Trump's approval rating has little to do with values. It has to do with how he's perceived to be doing his job. A 44% approval rating isn't actually so bad, given the fact that the mainstream media is hysterically opposed to him.
sunmaster14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th February 2017, 06:36 AM   #62
sunmaster14
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 9,608
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
I'm sure you also don't need climatologists to tell you if there's a warming trend or not, or an economist to tell you if supply-side is bonkers or not, or a biologist to tell you if evolution is true or not, or a doctor to tell you if you have a brain tumour or not.
You're going off-topic.

Quote:
You can think for yourself, and apparently that means that everybody else is wrong when they disagree with you, even when they clearly know their stuff more than you.
Clearly? Please explain why it's so clear.
sunmaster14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th February 2017, 06:36 AM   #63
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
 
quadraginta's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Central Vale of Humility
Posts: 16,535
Originally Posted by sunmaster14 View Post
Missing the point once again. How do you vet individuals who are citizens of a failed state or an uncooperative government? Where do you get the information about their background, and how do you confirm it?

The better question is "Where are we getting it?", since we evidently are.

How else do you think they caught the perpetrators of the Bowling Green Massacre?
__________________
"It never does just what I want, but only what I tell it."
quadraginta is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th February 2017, 06:37 AM   #64
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
 
quadraginta's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Central Vale of Humility
Posts: 16,535
Originally Posted by thaiboxerken View Post
Trump blames credits Obama for the pick of countries.

Kinda ironic, ain't it?

Using Obama's decisions to justify his own.
__________________
"It never does just what I want, but only what I tell it."
quadraginta is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th February 2017, 06:40 AM   #65
sunmaster14
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 9,608
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
so, you think Trump saved us all by banning people from one country, but not the one next to it? You think it's impossible to get a passport from another country if you are not tightly vetted, like you would be for refugee status?

For all kinds of reason, visa vetting will never be as tight as refugee vetting, which is why getting upset about Syrian refugees is plain illogical.
Of course I never claimed that Trump saved us all. That's a ridiculous strawman, and you know it. Frankly, I think Trump is implementing this ban as part of a larger national security strategy. He's sending a message to the rest of the world, and to the left. He's testing the opposition and moving the Overton window. I think, ultimately, he wants to change our immigration policy so that we stop preferentially importing people who are going to constitute a 5th column like exists in Europe. I also think he wants to exhaust leftist opposition by keeping them in a state of hysteria almost continuously for the next four years. I think generally he has a good strategy, and as a bonus, it's entertaining as hell.
sunmaster14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th February 2017, 07:17 AM   #66
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 59,724
Originally Posted by sunmaster14 View Post
You're going off-topic.
The point, which you've so predictably dodged, is that experts usually know more in their own fields than non-experts.

Quote:
Clearly? Please explain why it's so clear.
You think you know more about the law than a judge?
__________________
"What is best in life?"
Argumemnon is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th February 2017, 07:20 AM   #67
Ambrosia
Good of the Fods
 
Ambrosia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,266
Originally Posted by sunmaster14 View Post
Frankly, I think Trump is implementing this ban as part of a larger national security strategy. He's sending a message to the rest of the world, and to the left. [...] I think generally he has a good strategy,
He's sending a message to the rest of the world all right.

The USA is unreliable, and untrustworthy and has elected a head of state who is more concerned with his ego and how he is personally perceived than anything else.

He just gave ISIS plenty of recruiting material with his ill thought out and terribly implemented Muslim ban.

You don't defeat ideological terrorist leaning enemies with military action. At least not without actually going nuclear. Look at the protracted wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
You defeat terrorists and religious extremists by demonstrating to their population that your way of life (democracy and tolerance and compassion) is a better way than theirs.

You let in refugees and resettle them, you fly sick little girls to get life saving hospital care for free, you take in immigrants and help to educate them. etc etc.

If the extremists cannot recruit enough new members then they wither and die. They are blowing themselves up in martyrdom. They're not dying of old age, they need new recruits.

Actions speak louder than words.

Presently US actions are giving the extremists all of the new recruits they could ever want. Some grand plan that is.
Ambrosia is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th February 2017, 07:21 AM   #68
eeyore1954
Philosopher
 
eeyore1954's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,979
Originally Posted by TheL8Elvis View Post
It's cute how you keep pretending your opinion of the law is relevant.
Probably as relevant as most people's opinions on this board.
eeyore1954 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th February 2017, 07:28 AM   #69
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 59,724
Originally Posted by eeyore1954 View Post
Probably as relevant as most people's opinions on this board.
Compared to a judge? Probably.
__________________
"What is best in life?"
Argumemnon is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th February 2017, 07:34 AM   #70
sunmaster14
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 9,608
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
The point, which you've so predictably dodged, is that experts usually know more in their own fields than non-experts.
I have been an expert in some fields, and on certain narrow topics, unless I spend some time reviewing the relevant material, I may easily not know it or remember it. It is quite possible that a non-expert who has spent some time reviewing or thinking about a narrow area of my specialty will know more about it than I do.

Quote:
You think you know more about the law than a judge?
About the law in general, probably not. But I know enough about the law that I can read virtually any brief and understand it quickly. I know all the terminology, and I understand the general structure of the law in the US. As for the topic in question, either I do know a lot more about the law than this judge, or (and this is more likely) he simply ruled according to his politics and not according to the law.

Regardless, why are wasting your time attacking my qualifications? That's getting pretty close to a Rule 12 violation. My posts speak for themselves. Either rebut the analysis or don't, but attacking me because you're incapable of doing your own analysis is contrary to the spirit of a skeptic's forum.
sunmaster14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th February 2017, 07:37 AM   #71
eeyore1954
Philosopher
 
eeyore1954's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,979
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Compared to a judge? Probably.
Well I said most.

Although I am sure you can find judges who will argue for both sides on this executive order.
eeyore1954 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th February 2017, 07:39 AM   #72
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 59,724
Originally Posted by sunmaster14 View Post
I have been an expert in some fields, and on certain narrow topics, unless I spend some time reviewing the relevant material, I may easily not know it or remember it. It is quite possible that a non-expert who has spent some time reviewing or thinking about a narrow area of my specialty will know more about it than I do.
Oh, It's possible. It's also possible that I could survive a fall from a plane, but unlikely. Let's just say that, if I had to pick a judge or you, I'll pick the judge.

You may, of course, demonstrate that he's wrong. That way we won't have to give the law expert the benefit of the doubt.

Quote:
Regardless, why are wasting your time attacking my qualifications? That's getting pretty close to a Rule 12 violation.
No, it's not. You made yourself part of the topic when you said:

Quote:
I don't need judges to tell me what's right and wrong.
I didn't introduce this into the discussion. You did.
__________________
"What is best in life?"
Argumemnon is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th February 2017, 07:44 AM   #73
eeyore1954
Philosopher
 
eeyore1954's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,979
Originally Posted by Ambrosia View Post
He just gave ISIS plenty of recruiting material with his ill thought out and terribly implemented Muslim ban.

Actions speak louder than words.

Presently US actions are giving the extremists all of the new recruits they could ever want. Some grand plan that is.
Do you really believe this type of action makes much difference in recruiting to ISIS or other terrorist groups?

Quote:
You let in refugees and resettle them, you fly sick little girls to get life saving hospital care for free,
Up until now ISIS and other terrorist groups have been thriving while we have been doing these types of things.
eeyore1954 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th February 2017, 07:46 AM   #74
Garrison
Illuminator
 
Garrison's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 3,153
Originally Posted by sunmaster14 View Post



About the law in general, probably not. But I know enough about the law that I can read virtually any brief and understand it quickly. I know all the terminology, and I understand the general structure of the law in the US. As for the topic in question, either I do know a lot more about the law than this judge, or (and this is more likely) he simply ruled according to his politics and not according to the law.
Or option three the judge knows more about the relevant law than you do, and it is you whose judgment is being swayed by political beliefs.

Quote:
Regardless, why are wasting your time attacking my qualifications? That's getting pretty close to a Rule 12 violation. My posts speak for themselves. Either rebut the analysis or don't, but attacking me because you're incapable of doing your own analysis is contrary to the spirit of a skeptic's forum.
Your analysis hasn't risen above 'I don't like the judge's ruling, so the judge must be biased'. It would be great if we could analyze Trump's reasons for imposing the ban, but so far all we have gotten from his side is he can ban whoever he likes. Given the lack of any clear rationale behind the ban how can anyone be surprised the court overturned it?
__________________
So I've started a blog about my writing. Check it out at: http://fourth-planet-problem.blogspot.com/
Garrison is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th February 2017, 07:47 AM   #75
sunmaster14
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 9,608
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Oh, It's possible. It's also possible that I could survive a fall from a plane, but unlikely. Let's just say that, if I had to pick a judge or you, I'll pick the judge.

You may, of course, demonstrate that he's wrong. That way we won't have to give the law expert the benefit of the doubt.



No, it's not. You made yourself part of the topic when you said:



I didn't introduce this into the discussion. You did.
That's absurd. That was a general statement about using your own mind and not relying on authorities to tell you what to think. I have provided a detailed analysis of the legality of the executive order, as well as the judge's decision (such as it is). My point is that you should stop using an appeal to authority. It adds no value to the thread and is uninteresting besides.

I'll note also that introducing oneself as a topic does not mean that Rule 12 is off the table. Yes, perhaps if I claimed to be a lawyer, and you saw evidence that I was not, then it's ok to point it out. But just because I claim that a judge is wrong, I don't think you should be allowed to say that I know less about the law than a judge. Address the argument not the arguer. Although, the unwritten addendum to that around here seems to be "unless it's sunmaster14, in which case attack him all you want."
sunmaster14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th February 2017, 07:49 AM   #76
Doghouse Reilly
Adrift on an uncharted sea
 
Doghouse Reilly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,935
I read the judges ruling. If he had an analysis of the law that he based his decision on, he didn't explain it there. He basically skirted the issue. Regardless of one's opinions of Trump, I don't see this standing. It may go to the SCOTUS, of course..

ETA: his judgment basically involved saying that he felt the plaintiffs had merit in their suit, and that he couldn't see any compelling reason for Trump's executive order. That's not a legal analysis of whether or not Trump has the right to make such an order or not. Higher courts will have to deal with that, but to pretend that this judge actually made a decision addressing all the legal aspects involved is absurd.

Last edited by Doghouse Reilly; 6th February 2017 at 07:53 AM.
Doghouse Reilly is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th February 2017, 07:51 AM   #77
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 59,724
Originally Posted by sunmaster14 View Post
My point is that you should stop using an appeal to authority.
For pete's sake: it's not an appeal to authority if it's a relevant authority.

Quote:
I'll note also that introducing oneself as a topic does not mean that Rule 12 is off the table.
Of course it doesn't, but it also means that simply pointing out that experts usually know more than you in their own field directly addresses the argument you've made, which makes you part of the topic. Don't complain when people address your own arguments about yourself.
__________________
"What is best in life?"
Argumemnon is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th February 2017, 07:51 AM   #78
Lothian
should be banned
 
Lothian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 13,255
Originally Posted by sunmaster14 View Post
I don't need judges to tell me what's right and wrong. I can think for myself.
Don, is that you?



Quote:
And why shouldn't I criticize the judge for making a ruling that I disagree with?
I have no problem with you criticising the decision. As I said, time will tell who understands the law better.

My issue is with your statement "Not only does that judge not have access to any classified national security information, but he has no expertise in national security matters" and the inherent suggestion that the judge should not be given the option overrule Trump because he does not have the security information available to the President.

That is arguing for a dictatorship.
Lothian is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th February 2017, 07:53 AM   #79
sunmaster14
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 9,608
Originally Posted by Garrison View Post
Or option three the judge knows more about the relevant law than you do, and it is you whose judgment is being swayed by political beliefs.



Your analysis hasn't risen above 'I don't like the judge's ruling, so the judge must be biased'. It would be great if we could analyze Trump's reasons for imposing the ban, but so far all we have gotten from his side is he can ban whoever he likes. Given the lack of any clear rationale behind the ban how can anyone be surprised the court overturned it?
You obviously haven't read my first post in the thread. Or my second. Or any of the others. I'm happy to debate the merits of the federal government's argument in this case. I think it's a very lopsided argument. The executive order is clearly legal, and the TRO is clearly ridiculous. Which is not to say that the 9th circuit won't uphold it. At least one of the members of the panel that will review it - Michelle Friedlander - seems like a left-winger upon first impression. And the 9th circuit is stocked with liberals. It's by far the most liberal appeals court, as well (naturally) as the appeals court most frequently overturned by the Supreme Court.
sunmaster14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th February 2017, 07:53 AM   #80
Garrison
Illuminator
 
Garrison's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 3,153
Originally Posted by eeyore1954 View Post
Up until now ISIS and other terrorist groups have been thriving while we have been doing these types of things.

So being steadily driven out of the territory they seized is thriving? Just because a couple of wackos dedicated their attacks to ISIS doesn't mean the organization is strong. ISIS isn't the threat, it's some US Muslim loner watching Trump on TV, reading some extremist propaganda on the web and deciding the US really is at war with Islam, or just deciding that's an excuse to listen to voices in his head...
__________________
So I've started a blog about my writing. Check it out at: http://fourth-planet-problem.blogspot.com/
Garrison is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:21 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.