Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 123 (8733 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 02-26-2017 11:27 PM
470 online now:
Coyote, DrJones*, Percy (Admin), Pressie, Theodoric (5 members, 465 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: timtak
Post Volume:
Total: 799,488 Year: 4,094/21,208 Month: 2,489/1,605 Week: 126/563 Day: 126/27 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
4243
44
4546
...
49Next
Author Topic:   Trump's order on immigration and the wacko liberal response
Faith
Member
Posts: 23452
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 646 of 731 (799473)
02-10-2017 1:32 PM


One Conservative Opinion
Infowars commentator says the court simply usurped the role of the President; the law is crystal clear that the power is the President's.
Replies to this message:
 Message 655 by Modulous, posted 02-10-2017 3:38 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 681 by Rrhain, posted 02-10-2017 6:54 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
14174dm
Member
Posts: 87
Joined: 10-12-2015


Message 647 of 731 (799474)
02-10-2017 1:52 PM
Reply to: Message 642 by Faith
02-10-2017 12:28 PM


Re: Ninth District "Most Reversed" Court
The linked report lacked some information that might put more context on the reversals. First, how many cases does each District decide and what percentage of those are reviewed by the Supreme Court. Maybe the Ninth sees a huge volume of cases and dwarfs the output of the other Districts. Maybe the Supreme Court reviews a smaller proportion of the Ninth's decisions so the reversals are a smaller percentage of the total District output compared to others.

Wikipedia had some older information on the Ninth District
https://en.wikipedia.org/...of_Appeals_for_the_Ninth_Circuit

For 1999-2008, the Supreme Court review 0.151% of the Ninth's decisions. That means the Supreme Court agreed with 99.849% of the decisions.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 642 by Faith, posted 02-10-2017 12:28 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 5935
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 648 of 731 (799475)
02-10-2017 2:02 PM
Reply to: Message 613 by Faith
02-09-2017 11:02 PM


Re: wondering
Faith writes:

quote:
So let me understand.

Bring on the strawman....

quote:
Most here want Muslims to be free to enter the country with little or no vetting? Any restrictions at all?

Same with people crossing our southern border? No deportations, some deportions?


Nope. Nobody here has said any such thing. As predicted, a genuine strawman.

Think carefully, Faith: Are you seriously claiming that the only two options are either a ban or to have absolutely no policy regarding immigration?

Hint: How long does it take for a refugee to get clearance to come into the United States?

Bonus hint: What happens during that time period?

Extra bonus hint: What does it take to get a visa to the US?

Special bonus hint: Which countries need visas for entry to the US?

Exactly what is it you know about US immigration policy? Have you read a single thing about it from the actual Immigration and Naturalization Service? Things you got from Fox/Breitbart/Stormfront don't count. I want to know what research you've done into actual US immigration policy. It's all publicly available, so it should be easy for you to find out for yourself.

What is the process for someone from, say, Lebanon to come to the US?


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 613 by Faith, posted 02-09-2017 11:02 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 5935
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003
Member Rating: 4.2


(1)
Message 649 of 731 (799476)
02-10-2017 2:06 PM
Reply to: Message 614 by NoNukes
02-09-2017 11:48 PM


Re: wondering
NoNukes writes:

quote:
There are good reasons to vet at least some, and possibly large numbers of Muslims.

Huh? That only make sense in the most simplistic of senses. There are good reasons to vet at least some, and possibly large numbers of Christians, too.

What does the religion of the person wishing to immigrate have to do with anything? Most terrorism in the US is done at the hands of right-wing Christians. Our history with Muslim immigrants is that they tend not to engage in such activity. The crime rate for immigrants in general is less than half that for natives.

So exactly what is it about Muslims that has people on edge?

Here, let me fix that for you:

There are good reasons to vet at least some and possibly large numbers of immigrants to the United States.

Merely being Muslim is not a reason. In fact, it's chasing after shadows.


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 614 by NoNukes, posted 02-09-2017 11:48 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 657 by NoNukes, posted 02-10-2017 3:50 PM Rrhain has not yet responded

    
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8747
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


(7)
Message 650 of 731 (799477)
02-10-2017 2:50 PM


Rule of Law
It appears some individual here are having trouble understanding what a nation is. As an example, The USA is not it's lakes mountains and B-52s.

It is the society which we call "America". This only exists due to mutual agreement to operate in a certain way. That way is defined by the constitution and the laws arising from it's application.

The founders in framing the constitution had some examples of what can go wrong with societies when they looked at the European monarchies. They did their best to draw up rules that would prevent the abuse of power they saw there.

One over arching need to build the kind of society that they wanted is the rule of law. This is meant to control the misuse of power of despots -- either monarches or elected powerful individuals.

They recognized (and we would be well to remember whereever we live) that it is a constant struggle to find the right balance between concentrations of power that allow decisions to be made and over concentration that allows power to feed on itself so despotism arises.

Americans, particularly, worry about despotism and often feel that they need to be armed to be able to prevent it.

However, the real danger is the break down in the rule of law and destruction of the checks and balances built into the constitution which defines that the USA is.

The judiciary is a very important part of the checks on power. In the constitution it is defined to right about what is and is not constitutional.

When the powerful don't like this they want to cripple the judiciary. To do so would redefine what America is. It would not be what the founders tried to create. It would also be a society in which the rule of law would be at great risk and therefore a much more fragile democracy with a tendency to slide into despotism.


Replies to this message:
 Message 709 by RAZD, posted 02-11-2017 9:33 AM NosyNed has not yet responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 3405
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.4


(2)
Message 651 of 731 (799478)
02-10-2017 3:07 PM


Extreme Vetting
The problem with the present vetting system for immigration is that after years of interviews, background checks, security checks, financial and family checks, the process still ends up allowing Muslims into the country. Thatís not good.

Under the Extreme Vetting imagined by Steve Bannon, who is heading this entire Islamophobic tirade from the White House (remember, until Bannon joined Trumpís campaign staff Trumpís thing on immigration was Mexicans and The Wall) the vetting process would become a whole lot less time consuming and costly.

Agent: Are you a Muslim?
Applicant: Yes.
Agent: NEXT! ... (stamps application ďREJECTEDĒ)

Faith would like that, I think.



Replies to this message:
 Message 653 by Faith, posted 02-10-2017 3:24 PM AZPaul3 has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 23452
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 652 of 731 (799480)
02-10-2017 3:22 PM


Another Conservative Opinion
Another commentator at Infowars is saying the Constitution itself defines the jurisdiction of the President as covering immigration and national security, another fact that puts the court in the wrong.

Otherwise I haven't had time to listen/read other conservative opinions. Did catch a caller to a conservative talk show calling the judges "criminal."

I give these reports as a public service to information-challenged liberals/leftists.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 658 by PaulK, posted 02-10-2017 3:51 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 682 by Rrhain, posted 02-10-2017 6:59 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 23452
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 653 of 731 (799481)
02-10-2017 3:24 PM
Reply to: Message 651 by AZPaul3
02-10-2017 3:07 PM


Re: Extreme Vetting
I do confess to being Terrorismphobic. Can we add that to the PC arsenal?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 651 by AZPaul3, posted 02-10-2017 3:07 PM AZPaul3 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 660 by nwr, posted 02-10-2017 3:57 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 670 by AZPaul3, posted 02-10-2017 5:51 PM Faith has responded
 Message 683 by Rrhain, posted 02-10-2017 7:02 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 23452
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 654 of 731 (799484)
02-10-2017 3:38 PM


I've got Infowars talking away in the background as I type and just realized this report by David Knight is chock full of interesting historical facts that I'm only getting bits and pieces of. Stuff about fights between the Presidency and the Supreme Court in many different administrations down the years, when as he says both the President and the SCOTUS were at fault on different issues in different eras. Lincoln was very wrong about habeas corpus for instance but when Chief Justice Marshall told him that was unconstitutional, Lincoln threatened to have him arrested. Since I'm only getting bits and pieces I may have some of this a bit off.

Lots of other battles went by I couldn't even venture to report to this extent. And now he's got another really interesting guy on discussing the ruling.

It's so frustrating to get such important information in an audio format.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 656 by NoNukes, posted 02-10-2017 3:48 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 659 by NoNukes, posted 02-10-2017 3:54 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 684 by Rrhain, posted 02-10-2017 7:09 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7238
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005
Member Rating: 3.2


(1)
Message 655 of 731 (799485)
02-10-2017 3:38 PM
Reply to: Message 646 by Faith
02-10-2017 1:32 PM


Re: One Conservative Opinion
Infowars commentator says the court simply usurped the role of the President; the law is crystal clear that the power is the President's.

Some person said what you said. Excellent analysis.

Another commentator at Infowars is saying the Constitution itself defines the jurisdiction of the President as covering immigration and national security, another fact that puts the court in the wrong.

Some other person already said something else you said. Well that helps a lot!

I give these reports as a public service to information-challenged liberals/leftists.

Thanks, I hadn't realized other people were saying some things. I thought it was just you.

Opinions are all well and good. It's only useful and interesting if it is backed up with some kind of reasoning. Is this in Trump's power? What gives him that power? Why do the alleged constraints on his power not constrain this action?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 646 by Faith, posted 02-10-2017 1:32 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9208
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 656 of 731 (799487)
02-10-2017 3:48 PM
Reply to: Message 654 by Faith
02-10-2017 3:38 PM


Stuff about fights between the Presidency and the Supreme Court in many different administrations down the years, when as he says both the President and the SCOTUS were at fault on different issues in different eras. Lincoln was very wrong about habeas corpus for instance but when Chief Justice Marshall told him that was unconstitutional, Lincoln threatened to have him arrested.

Where is your argument? Surely a bunch of conservative folks talking about disagreements between executive and the courts isn't an argument. Surely pointing out that Lincoln was wrong does not support the idea that Trump is correct. Do you think presidents should be able to arrests judges? Do you believe the constitution supports such a thing.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King

I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson

Seems to me if its clear that certain things that require ancient dates couldn't possibly be true, we are on our way to throwing out all those ancient dates on the basis of the actual evidence. -- Faith

Some of us are worried about just how much damage he will do in his last couple of weeks as president, to make it easier for the NY Times and Washington post to try to destroy Trump's presidency. -- marc9000


This message is a reply to:
 Message 654 by Faith, posted 02-10-2017 3:38 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9208
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 657 of 731 (799488)
02-10-2017 3:50 PM
Reply to: Message 649 by Rrhain
02-10-2017 2:06 PM


Re: wondering
Huh? That only make sense in the most simplistic of senses. There are good reasons to vet at least some, and possibly large numbers of Christians, too.

Yes, Rrhain, that is true. But I answered a question about Muslims specifically and addressed a particular lie that the Faith was spouting about what had been discussed here.

There are good reasons to vet at least some and possibly large numbers of immigrants to the United States.

Of course. My statement, taken in context does not need fixing.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King

I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson

Seems to me if its clear that certain things that require ancient dates couldn't possibly be true, we are on our way to throwing out all those ancient dates on the basis of the actual evidence. -- Faith

Some of us are worried about just how much damage he will do in his last couple of weeks as president, to make it easier for the NY Times and Washington post to try to destroy Trump's presidency. -- marc9000


This message is a reply to:
 Message 649 by Rrhain, posted 02-10-2017 2:06 PM Rrhain has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 12290
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.6


(2)
Message 658 of 731 (799489)
02-10-2017 3:51 PM
Reply to: Message 652 by Faith
02-10-2017 3:22 PM


Re: Another Conservative Opinion
quote:

Another commentator at Infowars is saying the Constitution itself defines the jurisdiction of the President as covering immigration and national security, another fact that puts the court in the wrong.

That only proves that commentators at Infowars can't be trusted to understand what they are talking about. The court isn't taking responsibility for immigration or national security. The court is doing its job of resolving a legal controversy - of reviewing the President's decision for compatibility with the Constitution, when requested to do so by - in this case - State governments. Indeed at present the courts are doing less than that, all that is at stake is an injunction preventing sections of the Executive Order from being put into effect until the courts come to a decision.

What you are doing is denying the checks and balances of the Constitution, making the false assumption that responsibility equates to total control beyond any legal constraint.

quote:

Otherwise I haven't had time to listen/read other conservative opinions. Did catch a caller to a conservative talk show calling the judges "criminal."

I give these reports as a public service to information-challenged liberals/lefti


Anyone who is unaware of the right-wing threat to liberty is information-challenged indeed. Thank you for providing further evidence of it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 652 by Faith, posted 02-10-2017 3:22 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9208
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 659 of 731 (799490)
02-10-2017 3:54 PM
Reply to: Message 654 by Faith
02-10-2017 3:38 PM


It's so frustrating to get such important information in an audio format.

What format would you want to get it in?

I find it hilarious that you aren't sure exactly what the conservative reasoning is, but you are sure that you will agree with it once you find it. Who acts like that?


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King

I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson

Seems to me if its clear that certain things that require ancient dates couldn't possibly be true, we are on our way to throwing out all those ancient dates on the basis of the actual evidence. -- Faith

Some of us are worried about just how much damage he will do in his last couple of weeks as president, to make it easier for the NY Times and Washington post to try to destroy Trump's presidency. -- marc9000


This message is a reply to:
 Message 654 by Faith, posted 02-10-2017 3:38 PM Faith has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 661 by Modulous, posted 02-10-2017 4:03 PM NoNukes has responded

    
nwr
Member
Posts: 5489
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 660 of 731 (799491)
02-10-2017 3:57 PM
Reply to: Message 653 by Faith
02-10-2017 3:24 PM


Re: Extreme Vetting
I do confess to being Terrorismphobic.

I can suggest a cure for that.

Turn off "Infowars" -- and never turn it on again.


Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity

This message is a reply to:
 Message 653 by Faith, posted 02-10-2017 3:24 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
4243
44
4546
...
49Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017