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 11th February 2017, 01:35 PM   #321
BobTheCoward
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 8,345
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
I don't think Trump is that clever and his EO blew up in his face anyway.
There is nothing clever about what I described.
BobTheCoward 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 11th February 2017, 01:40 PM   #322
Fudbucker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 6,260
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
There is nothing clever about what I described.
You described a situation where Trump is calculating the max amount of Muslims he can deny entry to and Trump somehow came to the conclusion that those 7 countries is the best he can do. Unless I totally misread you. I don't think Trump thinks like that.
Fudbucker 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 11th February 2017, 01:42 PM   #323
NoahFence
Psycho Kitty
 
NoahFence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 20,503
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
Because he wants to ban as many Muslims as possible. An effort to ban more would result in a greater rebuke from the nation and a worst reversal. Some is better than none.

If it were about banning as many muslims as he could, why is Iran the only country in the top 10 muslim population on the list? Indonesia didn't make the list. Neither did India, Pakistan or Bangladesh.

That link may be a hair outdated, but I'm sure it'll hold up to scrutiny.

So if it wasn't about numbers of Muslims in his ban, and it wasn't about actually protecting us from those who have already hurt us, then it could only be about one thing.

He wanted to make a headline so he went in with no thought whatsoever. Just like he did in Yemen. Both things that the Obama administration had discussed, but not pulled the trigger on, because they didn't have all the information.

Trump doesn't do information that often, and when he does it comes from INFOWARS.
__________________
you to the ignorant, uneducated portion ofAmerica too short sighted to see what's right in front of your cheeto loving faces.

Last edited by NoahFence; 11th February 2017 at 01:43 PM.
NoahFence 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 11th February 2017, 02:00 PM   #324
BobTheCoward
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 8,345
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
You described a situation where Trump is calculating the max amount of Muslims he can deny entry to and Trump somehow came to the conclusion that those 7 countries is the best he can do. Unless I totally misread you. I don't think Trump thinks like that.
He thinks like that but it isn't clever.
BobTheCoward 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 11th February 2017, 02:01 PM   #325
BobTheCoward
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 8,345
Originally Posted by NoahFence View Post
If it were about banning as many muslims as he could, why is Iran the only country in the top 10 muslim population on the list? Indonesia didn't make the list. Neither did India, Pakistan or Bangladesh.
Because that would have backfired.
BobTheCoward 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 11th February 2017, 02:17 PM   #326
NoahFence
Psycho Kitty
 
NoahFence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 20,503
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
Because that would have backfired.

Yea, on his wallet.
__________________
you to the ignorant, uneducated portion ofAmerica too short sighted to see what's right in front of your cheeto loving faces.
NoahFence 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 11th February 2017, 02:22 PM   #327
Skeptic Tank
Trigger Warning
 
Skeptic Tank's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,205
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
The same way you don't need a policy to kill everyone of an ethnic group to commit genocide.

The same way stop and frisk targets black people even though not every black person is affected MD some non black people are.

I think this idea it.must be all or nothing is risible.
Any kind of effort to combat crime will look, at a glance, like it's targeting blacks.

Any effort to limit immigration from unstable, violent hell holes will appear to be singling out Muslims.

Tells you a lot about both groups.

If I tell everyone at the office that we're implementing new safeguards against people stealing office supplies and dipping into the petty cash, and one employee is loudly opposed to this, I just found the thief.
__________________
"Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate than that these people are to be free. Nor is it less certain that the two races, equally free, cannot live in the same government. Nature, habit, opinion has drawn indelible lines of distinction between them." - Thomas Jefferson
Reality is going to force you to become me.
Skeptic Tank 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 11th February 2017, 02:28 PM   #328
CapelDodger
Penultimate Amazing
 
CapelDodger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Cardiff, South Wales
Posts: 22,369
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
You described a situation where Trump is calculating the max amount of Muslims he can deny entry to and Trump somehow came to the conclusion that those 7 countries is the best he can do. Unless I totally misread you. I don't think Trump thinks like that.
I think he'll just go with "More than ever". Numbers confuse the issue : the point is to get the feeling across.
__________________
It's a poor sort of memory that only works backward - Lewis Carroll (1832-1898)

God can make a cow out of a tree, but has He ever done so? Therefore show some reason why a thing is so, or cease to hold that it is so - William of Conches, c1150
CapelDodger 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 11th February 2017, 02:36 PM   #329
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 15,911
Originally Posted by sunmaster14 View Post
No, I'm saying that, despite what either Trump or Guiliani called it then or call it now, it was never meant to be a Muslim ban in the sense of keeping Muslims out of the country because they're Muslim.
You think Trump a liar, then?

Quote:
Trump used inflammatory language to get some media attention (most likely), but I think his policy goal was to make the US safer from terrorism.
Rudi Guiliani is not a member of the press.

Quote:
I don't think he wanted a ban on Muslims.
And yet he specifically asked for a ban on Muslims. That would make him incompetent at best, wouldn't it?

Quote:
He really wanted a ban on people coming from countries overrun by terrorists.
No, that was Guiliani.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim 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 11th February 2017, 02:55 PM   #330
CapelDodger
Penultimate Amazing
 
CapelDodger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Cardiff, South Wales
Posts: 22,369
Originally Posted by Skeptic Tank View Post
Any kind of effort to combat crime will look, at a glance, like it's targeting blacks.
Any targeting of blacks can be presented as an effort to combat crime. It's called "racial profiling".

Quote:
Any effort to limit immigration from unstable, violent hell holes will appear to be singling out Muslims.
The Muslim world has been peculiarly subject to destabilisation in recent times, starting with the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979.

At another time those hell-holes would have been in Indo-China.

Quote:
Tells you a lot about both groups.
It tells you a lot about the worlds they live in.

Quote:
If I tell everyone at the office that we're implementing new safeguards against people stealing office supplies and dipping into the petty cash, and one employee is loudly opposed to this, I just found the thief.
That's some deep thinking.
__________________
It's a poor sort of memory that only works backward - Lewis Carroll (1832-1898)

God can make a cow out of a tree, but has He ever done so? Therefore show some reason why a thing is so, or cease to hold that it is so - William of Conches, c1150
CapelDodger 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 11th February 2017, 02:59 PM   #331
CapelDodger
Penultimate Amazing
 
CapelDodger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Cardiff, South Wales
Posts: 22,369
Getting back on thread, is the case going to SCOTUS?
__________________
It's a poor sort of memory that only works backward - Lewis Carroll (1832-1898)

God can make a cow out of a tree, but has He ever done so? Therefore show some reason why a thing is so, or cease to hold that it is so - William of Conches, c1150
CapelDodger 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 11th February 2017, 03:07 PM   #332
Elagabalus
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 1,537
Originally Posted by Skeptic Tank View Post
Any kind of effort to combat crime will look, at a glance, like it's targeting blacks.

Any effort to limit immigration from unstable, violent hell holes will appear to be singling out Muslims.

Tells you a lot about both groups.

If I tell everyone at the office that we're implementing new safeguards against people stealing office supplies and dipping into the petty cash, and one employee is loudly opposed to this, I just found the thief.

You're not even trying anymore ...
Elagabalus 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 11th February 2017, 03:09 PM   #333
pgwenthold
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 16,349
Originally Posted by CapelDodger View Post
Getting back on thread, is the case going to SCOTUS?
If so, it will wait until the new justice is in place. Which just shows how important it was that he make that order 8mmediately
__________________
I have a permanent room at the Home for the Chronically Groovy - Floyd from the Muppets
pgwenthold 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 11th February 2017, 03:22 PM   #334
DevilsAdvocate
Illuminator
 
DevilsAdvocate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 4,636
Originally Posted by Lurch View Post
As a Canadian I admit to great ignorance here.

Regarding EOs; is it not a requirement that some demonstrable *reason* be given as justification? Or is it indeed the the case that unfettered power has been accorded POTUS to unilaterally make law on his/her say-so alone?

If the latter, that's the operational definition of a dictatorship. Surely at least the *spirit* of the Constitution on this matter does not permit such?
The legislative branch (Congress, which consists of the House of Representatives and the Senate) pass the laws. These are Acts that are incorporated into the U.S. Code (the list of federal statutory laws).

The executive branch (President, Cabinets, military, other government agencies) execute the laws passed by Congress and carry out the day-to-day operations of the government.

The laws passed by Congress may be very specific. But in many cases they are general and it is up to the executive branch to work out the specifics. Some laws specifically grant the executive branch the power to make certain decisions.

The executive branch can create laws in the form of regulations. These are incorporated into the Code of Federal Regulations. Most cabinet-level agencies are regulatory agencies. Regulations do not need the approval of Congress, but can be rejected by Congress (although that rarely happens). Regulations generally just expand on laws passed by Congress by describing how the laws will be carried out, what other people or organizations must do to comply with the law, and make decisions on how specific situations that might address will be handled.

Agencies in the executive branch also form policies. These are not actually laws (Although they could become relevant in a court decision). Policies describe how an agencies in the executive branch will handle the execution of laws passed by Congress and other required functions.

Executive orders are issued by the President and have the force of law if they are derived from laws passed by Congress (or the Constitution). Executive orders are incorporated into the Code of Federal Regulations (in Title 3). As such, they are essentially regulations created directly by the President rather by a regulatory agency. They generally give direction to agencies within the executive branch, establish policies, determine levels of enforcement, direct focus to certain matters, create committees and task forces, call for certain studies to be conducted, and address emergency situations.

Although not required, an executive order often starts by citing specific laws that grant the authority for the order. They also usually describe the purpose (justification) for the order. The executive order for the travel ban provides justification (terrorism-related crimes by foreign-born individuals) and the authority (Constitution, Immigration and Nationality Act (8 USC 1101 et seq), 3 USC 301). For the travel ban, the most relevant is 8 USC 1182(f) “Suspension of entry or imposition of restriction by President” which gives the President the power to suspend the entry of any class of aliens.

The question raised in court is not whether the President can issue this type of travel ban, but whether this specific ban violates due process and anti-discrimination laws.
__________________
Heaven forbid someone reads these words and claims to be adversely affected by them, thus ensuring a barrage of lawsuits filed under the guise of protecting the unknowing victims who were stupid enough to read this and believe it! - Kevin Trudeau
DevilsAdvocate 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 11th February 2017, 03:30 PM   #335
Skeptic Tank
Trigger Warning
 
Skeptic Tank's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,205
Originally Posted by CapelDodger View Post
Any targeting of blacks can be presented as an effort to combat crime.<SNIP>
Lol, and why would that be? Because the connection between blacks and crime is so firmly rooted in reality? Such that any time there is a large concentration of them, crime will be high?
__________________
"Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate than that these people are to be free. Nor is it less certain that the two races, equally free, cannot live in the same government. Nature, habit, opinion has drawn indelible lines of distinction between them." - Thomas Jefferson
Reality is going to force you to become me.
Skeptic Tank 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 11th February 2017, 03:33 PM   #336
sunmaster14
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 9,690
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
You think Trump a liar, then?
At times he lies, at others he ********s, and at others he muddles his words or leaves things ambiguous. He's certainly not the clearest communicator I've ever seen, but most politicians are pretty bad. Trump's worse than average. Probably a lot worse.

Regardless, I wrote what I believe (as I try always to do). Not sure what more you want from me.

Quote:
Rudi Guiliani is not a member of the press.

And yet he specifically asked for a ban on Muslims. That would make him incompetent at best, wouldn't it?
Well, he was a candidate back then, and he was campaigning to win primaries. His goal was different (to win the Republican nomination) than what it is now (govern the country effectively, or find more pussy to grab - maybe both).

Quote:
No, that was Guiliani.
Doesn't matter. I think it was both.
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 11th February 2017, 03:37 PM   #337
sunmaster14
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 9,690
Originally Posted by DevilsAdvocate View Post
The legislative branch (Congress, which consists of the House of Representatives and the Senate) pass the laws. These are Acts that are incorporated into the U.S. Code (the list of federal statutory laws).

The executive branch (President, Cabinets, military, other government agencies) execute the laws passed by Congress and carry out the day-to-day operations of the government.

The laws passed by Congress may be very specific. But in many cases they are general and it is up to the executive branch to work out the specifics. Some laws specifically grant the executive branch the power to make certain decisions.

The executive branch can create laws in the form of regulations. These are incorporated into the Code of Federal Regulations. Most cabinet-level agencies are regulatory agencies. Regulations do not need the approval of Congress, but can be rejected by Congress (although that rarely happens). Regulations generally just expand on laws passed by Congress by describing how the laws will be carried out, what other people or organizations must do to comply with the law, and make decisions on how specific situations that might address will be handled.

Agencies in the executive branch also form policies. These are not actually laws (Although they could become relevant in a court decision). Policies describe how an agencies in the executive branch will handle the execution of laws passed by Congress and other required functions.

Executive orders are issued by the President and have the force of law if they are derived from laws passed by Congress (or the Constitution). Executive orders are incorporated into the Code of Federal Regulations (in Title 3). As such, they are essentially regulations created directly by the President rather by a regulatory agency. They generally give direction to agencies within the executive branch, establish policies, determine levels of enforcement, direct focus to certain matters, create committees and task forces, call for certain studies to be conducted, and address emergency situations.

Although not required, an executive order often starts by citing specific laws that grant the authority for the order. They also usually describe the purpose (justification) for the order. The executive order for the travel ban provides justification (terrorism-related crimes by foreign-born individuals) and the authority (Constitution, Immigration and Nationality Act (8 USC 1101 et seq), 3 USC 301). For the travel ban, the most relevant is 8 USC 1182(f) “Suspension of entry or imposition of restriction by President” which gives the President the power to suspend the entry of any class of aliens.

The question raised in court is not whether the President can issue this type of travel ban, but whether this specific ban violates due process and anti-discrimination laws.
Not anti-discrimination laws, in general, but specifically the Establishment clause and the Free Exercise clause with respect to religion of the First Amendment. The free exercise clause is clearly irrelevant. The establishment clause is probably irrelevant if it can be shown there is a secular purpose to favoring or disfavoring immigrants of a particular religion (e.g. national security, or to help a persecuted group).
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 11th February 2017, 03:52 PM   #338
Fudbucker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 6,260
Originally Posted by Elagabalus View Post
You're not even trying anymore ...
Actually, he's correct. By virtue of the fact that blacks commit disproportionate amounts of crime, any heightened police response is going to come down hardest on any group committing disproportionate amounts of crime relative to their percentage of the population. It will also disproportionately affect men, of course, since men commit nearly all violent crimes.

Similarly, if Trump based his travel ban on countries that Human Rights Watch has singled out for egregious abuses, it's also going to look totally biased towards Europe. Is there any European country that is comparable in awfulness to Iran? Maybe Russia? Although at least you don't get stoned to death in Russia.
Fudbucker 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 11th February 2017, 03:57 PM   #339
tyr_13
Penultimate Amazing
 
tyr_13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 14,950
Originally Posted by sunmaster14 View Post
Not anti-discrimination laws, in general, but specifically the Establishment clause and the Free Exercise clause with respect to religion of the First Amendment. The free exercise clause is clearly irrelevant. The establishment clause is probably irrelevant if it can be shown there is a secular purpose to favoring or disfavoring immigrants of a particular religion (e.g. national security, or to help a persecuted group).

That would let it pass one third of the Lemon Test, but would fail the rest. It would also fail the Endorsement Test, and the Coercion Test doesn't seem to apply.

So no, it's not even close to irrelevant from the basic tests I can think of regarding the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses.
__________________
Circled nothing is still nothing.
"Nothing will stop the U.S. from being a world leader, not even a handful of adults who want their kids to take science lessons from a book that mentions unicorns six times." -UNLoVedRebel
Mumpsimus: a stubborn person who insists on making an error in spite of being shown that it is wrong
tyr_13 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 11th February 2017, 04:05 PM   #340
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 38,054
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
Rudi Guiliani says that a Muslim ban is what Trump was after. So if you're saying that it's not, then all you're doing is saying that Trump was unable to do what he set out to do.
First, you didn't answer his question. Do YOU think it's a muslim ban?

Second, so what if he's unable to do what he set out to do? That's not relevant to the courts. In fact, everything Giuliani said should be irrelevant to the court. Even what Trump said prior to taking office should be irrelevant to the court.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat 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 11th February 2017, 04:07 PM   #341
DevilsAdvocate
Illuminator
 
DevilsAdvocate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 4,636
Originally Posted by CapelDodger View Post
Getting back on thread, is the case going to SCOTUS?
Not likely. Trump says he won’t bring it to the Supreme Court right now.

This case is on the temporary restraining order (TRO) issued by the court to stop the travel ban until the court rules on the legality of questionable parts of the executive order.

The travel ban is for 90 days, 120 days for refugees (except for indefinitely for Syria). The Supreme Court would probably hear the case right away, but even with a new Trump-friendly justice in place, it is not likely they would prevail. The Government made a very weak case on the appeal. The TRO simply reinstates the policies that have been in place for years and the Government provided no evidence of any terrorist-related attacks by anyone from any of the countries in question during that time. They provided essentially no evidence for the immediate need for the travel ban.

The primary case may still continue (especially on the question of the policy that essentially favors Christians), but the temporary travel ban will likely be almost or completely over by the time the case is completed.
__________________
Heaven forbid someone reads these words and claims to be adversely affected by them, thus ensuring a barrage of lawsuits filed under the guise of protecting the unknowing victims who were stupid enough to read this and believe it! - Kevin Trudeau
DevilsAdvocate 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 11th February 2017, 04:24 PM   #342
DevilsAdvocate
Illuminator
 
DevilsAdvocate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 4,636
Originally Posted by sunmaster14 View Post
Not anti-discrimination laws, in general, but specifically the Establishment clause and the Free Exercise clause with respect to religion of the First Amendment. The free exercise clause is clearly irrelevant. The establishment clause is probably irrelevant if it can be shown there is a secular purpose to favoring or disfavoring immigrants of a particular religion (e.g. national security, or to help a persecuted group).
The Free Exercise clause was not raised, but the Equal Protection clause was. The relevance is cited in the appellate court ruling under section VII “Likelihood of Success—Religious Discrimination”.
__________________
Heaven forbid someone reads these words and claims to be adversely affected by them, thus ensuring a barrage of lawsuits filed under the guise of protecting the unknowing victims who were stupid enough to read this and believe it! - Kevin Trudeau
DevilsAdvocate 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 11th February 2017, 04:56 PM   #343
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 15,911
Originally Posted by sunmaster14 View Post
Well, he was a candidate back then, and he was campaigning to win primaries. His goal was different (to win the Republican nomination) than what it is now (govern the country effectively, or find more pussy to grab - maybe both).
I'm sure I've seen this said before somewhere. Hang on a minute...



Yup, that's it. Well, that's a good precedent.

Quote:
Doesn't matter.
Indeed. Why would the truth matter when trying to determine the truth?

Quote:
I think it was both.
Based, it seems, on wishful thinking and ignoring the actual testimony of those involved.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim 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 11th February 2017, 05:01 PM   #344
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 15,911
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
First, you didn't answer his question.
Nobody asked me a question.

I was simply pointing out that anybody claiming that it wasn't intended to be a ban on Muslims is disagreeing with no less an authority than Donald Trump himself.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim 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 11th February 2017, 05:39 PM   #345
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 38,054
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
Nobody asked me a question.
I didn't say he asked it to you. I said he asked it, and he did. And it's in the post you responded to. It's rather relevant. But if you insist on bizarre technicalities, fine. I'll ask you. Do you, Squeegee Beckenheim, think that his EO was intended to ban muslims?
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat 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 11th February 2017, 05:42 PM   #346
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 38,054
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
Yup, that's it. Well, that's a good precedent.
Interesting. See, I take from that a very different lesson than you seem to take. The lesson that I see from that as most applicable to our current situation is that the elites don't know what the **** they're talking about.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat 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 11th February 2017, 06:09 PM   #347
Foolmewunz
Grammar Resistance Leader
TLA Dictator
 
Foolmewunz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Pattaya, Thailand
Posts: 36,038
Originally Posted by sunmaster14 View Post
By the way, there has been an interesting development in the case at the 9th circuit court of appeals. An unnamed judge has made a sua sponte request for a rehearing en banc. Sua sponte means that the judge has made a motion on his own initiative, i.e. without a request from either party. To say that this is pretty damn unusual would be an understatement.

Anyway, the parties are supposed to brief the issue of whether or not a rehearing en banc should happen. My guess is that both sides will oppose it, although that doesn't mean the rehearing won't happen. My understanding is that Trump is rewriting the executive order anyway, so that it is judicially impregnable.

My guess is also that the sua sponte request was made because one of the judges on the 9th circuit felt that the issue of standing for the State of Washington was decided incorrectly. I think it was a totally bogus ruling, and that it can create a lot of mischief going forward. If a state can have standing just by virtue of some incidental effects on one of its state funded universities, then there is very little that is off the table for the state government, standing-wise.

ETA: A link to the order is here.
Prediction: His request will be turned down. The full circuit decides whether to re-hear. They will not cross their own judges.
__________________
Ha! Foolmewunz has just been added to the list of people who aren't complete idiots. Hokulele
"Chicken **** Poster!"
Help! We're being attacked by sea lions!
Foolmewunz 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 11th February 2017, 07:58 PM   #348
logger
Suspended
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 8,198
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
It's not all about sides, mate. We're all individuals with incompatible values and beliefs. We fall on "sides" of certain issues, but that's about it.
You're of course wrong again, it is all about sides. Some just aren't honest enough to admit it, mate.
logger 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 11th February 2017, 08:00 PM   #349
logger
Suspended
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 8,198
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
Trump responded on twitter



I wonder where he thinks this was decided, if not in court?
I'll help you, he is talking about the Supreme Court. Trump constantly makes this mistake of NOT spelling things out in total for the left.
logger 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 11th February 2017, 08:04 PM   #350
logger
Suspended
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 8,198
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
Because he wants to ban as many Muslims as possible. An effort to ban more would result in a greater rebuke from the nation and a worst reversal. Some is better than none.
You're stretching beyond reality. Why can't you just accept what it is? Fud has obviously proven it's not a Muslim ban by one simple question.
logger 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 11th February 2017, 08:06 PM   #351
logger
Suspended
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 8,198
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
He thinks like that but it isn't clever.
It isn't about being clever, it's about righting a serious situation and not simply leaving it up to chance as all crazy leftist seem to want to do.
logger 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 11th February 2017, 08:08 PM   #352
logger
Suspended
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 8,198
Originally Posted by CapelDodger View Post
Getting back on thread, is the case going to SCOTUS?
No, it's going to be tweaked to allow for the few folks caught up in it. It should be chalked up as a win for the left and their activist court. It would seem the only sliver of power they have left.
logger 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 11th February 2017, 09:27 PM   #353
Border Reiver
Philosopher
 
Border Reiver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 5,968
Originally Posted by logger View Post
It isn't about being clever, it's about righting a serious situation and not simply leaving it up to chance as all crazy leftist seem to want to do.


Serious situation?

When was the last terrorist attack carried out in the US by anyone from any of the countries on the banned list?

In addition, why are you ignoring the rather extensive vetting that is done by at least 4 agencies?
__________________
Questions, comments, queries, bitches, complaints, rude gestures and/or remarks?
Border Reiver 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 11th February 2017, 09:54 PM   #354
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 38,054
Originally Posted by Foolmewunz View Post
Prediction: His request will be turned down. The full circuit decides whether to re-hear. They will not cross their own judges.
The request for an en banc hearing came from one of the 9th circuit judges. Accepting a request from one of their own judges hardly counts as crossing their own judges.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat 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 11th February 2017, 09:57 PM   #355
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 38,054
Originally Posted by Border Reiver View Post
When was the last terrorist attack carried out in the US by anyone from any of the countries on the banned list?
Why does everyone keep trying to make this the relevant standard? That doesn't actually make sense. The world isn't static. Future risk cannot be accurately estimated by simply projecting from past statistics.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat 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 11th February 2017, 10:39 PM   #356
Lurch
Scholar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 87
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Why does everyone keep trying to make this the relevant standard? That doesn't actually make sense. The world isn't static. Future risk cannot be accurately estimated by simply projecting from past statistics.
True, future risk cannot be *accurately* assessed. That's why we give no thought to getting in our cars, in spite of the *vastly* higher risk of dying in an auto collision than by the hands of a terrorist.

How many folks in America have perished on the roads today?

How many were murdered by their own citizens? Family?

How many were killed by terrorists?

What might be the numbers tomorrow? Over the next month? The coming year?

What do the statistics of risk assessment have to say?
Lurch 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 11th February 2017, 10:45 PM   #357
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 14,940
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Why does everyone keep trying to make this the relevant standard? That doesn't actually make sense. The world isn't static. Future risk cannot be accurately estimated by simply projecting from past statistics.
Yeah, who would have predicted a federal building being blown up by a white guy born in New York state?
__________________
"Realize deeply that the present moment is all you ever have." (Eckhart Tolle, 2004)

Last edited by LSSBB; 11th February 2017 at 10:48 PM.
LSSBB 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 11th February 2017, 10:52 PM   #358
Foolmewunz
Grammar Resistance Leader
TLA Dictator
 
Foolmewunz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Pattaya, Thailand
Posts: 36,038
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
The request for an en banc hearing came from one of the 9th circuit judges. Accepting a request from one of their own judges hardly counts as crossing their own judges.
Agreeing to the request would likely be seen as such by the remainder of the judges. And if it goes to a hearing it's just an opportunity for other (obviously partisan) judges to write their dissent. They're not going to overturn it.

Dog-and-pony show.
__________________
Ha! Foolmewunz has just been added to the list of people who aren't complete idiots. Hokulele
"Chicken **** Poster!"
Help! We're being attacked by sea lions!
Foolmewunz 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 11th February 2017, 10:52 PM   #359
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 38,054
Originally Posted by Lurch View Post
What do the statistics of risk assessment have to say?
That black swan events are a much bigger issue with terrorism than with car crashes, and any attempt to equate them is stupid.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat 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 11th February 2017, 11:00 PM   #360
Lurch
Scholar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 87
I see Trump's Ban as poorly thought out grandstanding intended solely to pander to his base. Showing them that he's doing exactly what he said he would. And appealing to the nascent--if not overt--discriminatory mindset.

In other Fora I see comments that are fairly rabid in their enthusiastic endorsement of the 'plain speaking' outsider doing it the way 'the people' want it done. I hope that lot truly are a tiny minority.

While the parallels are certainly not universal, by any means, this tactic does bring to mind Hitler's exploiting of the animus to the Jews. Imagine how much more traction Trump would have gotten if it wasn't 9/11/01, but instead 9/11/15.
Lurch 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 02:59 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.